RSN April 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Warren writes: "Behind all the slogans of the Tea Party - and all the thinly veiled calls for anarchy in Washington - is a reality: The American people don't want a future without government."

Elizabeth Warren speaks to reporters during a news conference, 05/02/12. (photo: Steven Senne/AP)
Elizabeth Warren speaks to reporters during a news conference, 05/02/12. (photo: Steven Senne/AP)


We Are Not a Country of Anarchists

By Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News

04 October 13

 

f you watch the anarchist tirades coming from extremist Republicans in the House, you'd think they believe that the government that governs best is a government that doesn't exist at all.

But behind all the slogans of the Tea Party - and all the thinly veiled calls for anarchy in Washington - is a reality: The American people don't want a future without government.

When was the last time the anarchy gang called for regulators to go easier on companies that put lead in children's toys? Or for inspectors to stop checking whether the meat in our grocery stores is crawling with deadly bacteria? Or for the FDA to ignore whether morning sickness drugs will cause horrible deformities in our babies?

When? Never. In fact, whenever the anarchists make any headway in their quest and cause damage to our government, the opposite happens.

After the sequester kicked in, Republicans immediately turned around and called on us to protect funding for our national defense and to keep our air traffic controllers on the job.

And now that the House Republicans have shut down the government - holding the country hostage because of some imaginary government "health care boogeyman" - Republicans almost immediately turned around and called on us to start reopening parts of our government.

Why do they do this? Because the boogeyman government in the alternate universe of their fiery political speeches isn't real. It doesn't exist.

Government is real, and it has three basic functions:

  1. Provide for the national defense.
  2. Put rules in place rules, like traffic lights and bank regulations, that are fair and transparent.
  3. Build the things together that none of us can build alone - roads, schools, power grids - the things that give everyone a chance to succeed.

These things did not appear by magic. In each instance, we made a choice as a people to come together. We made that choice because we wanted to be a country with a foundation that would allow anyone to have a chance to succeed.

The Food and Drug Administration makes sure that the white pills we take are antibiotics and not baking soda. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration oversees crash tests to make sure our new cars have functioning brakes. The Consumer Product Safety Commission makes sure that babies' car seats don't collapse in a crash and that toasters don't explode.

We are alive, we are healthier, we are stronger because of government. Alive, healthier, stronger because of what we did together.

We are not a country of anarchists. We are not a country of pessimists and ideologues whose motto is, "I've got mine, the rest of you are on your own." We are not a country that tolerates dangerous drugs, unsafe meat, dirty air, or toxic mortgages.

We are not that nation. We have never been that nation. And we never will be that nation.

The political minority in the House that condemns government and begged for this shutdown has its day. But like all the reckless and extremist factions that have come before it, its day will pass - and the government will get back to the work we have chosen to do together.



Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-173 # L. Smith 2013-10-04 10:02
Elizabeth Warren is deliberately using extremist terms to stir up emotion. Tea partiers are by definition not anarchists. Anarchy is not limited government. By her definition, Henry David Thoreau, whom she paraphrased at the outset, would be an "extremist Republican." Can our leaders stop acting like children, speak to each other civilly, and fix D.C.? Please? Both parties.
 
 
+84 # ganymede 2013-10-04 11:25
What's outstanding about Elizabeth Warren asides from her intelligence and integrity is the obvious fact that she's a normal human being reacting to a political and social situation that's gotten totally out of control. I live in NYC where 82% of the people voted for Obama who is hardly perfect, but he would still get the same vote if not more if he could run again. The Republican Party has been totally taken over by mostly angry white men, who live in the former confederacy and other backwaters who have sold their souls for a mess of some strange pottage. They have gone psychotic and no not what they want, even if it;s for their own good, but they certainly don't want a black man telling them what to do. They have lost sight of their humanity and what a civic society and the 'common good' is. We are all God's children and we are all here together trying to take care of our own lives but never forgetting that we are all in this together. Rightwinger don't understand that they've been propagandized to death by a small, but evil part of our country's 1% who think they own our lives. All they want is more money and power, and have brainwashed these Tea Partiers into doing their bidding. Happily we have Elizabeth Warren and there are and will be more Elizabeth Warrens to remind us of who we really are and bring us back to center.
 
 
-33 # dkonstruction 2013-10-04 11:26
Quoting L. Smith:
Elizabeth Warren is deliberately using extremist terms to stir up emotion. Tea partiers are by definition not anarchists. Anarchy is not limited government.


I agree that to refer to right-wing republican "extremeists" as anarchists is simply wrong and an unfortunate misuse of the term. For the record, I am not an anarchist (though I have a lot of sympathy for some anarchists e.g., the Spanish anarchists during the Spanish civil war).

To give just one example, these so-called Republican "anarchists" do not want to do away with (let alone cut at all) the US "defense" (i.e., warfare) budget. True "anarchists" would do away with this budget entirely (since they also want to completely do away with government (i.e., the state).

At the same time, anarchists are not against "governance" but for them it must be fully participatory democratic governance (examples might be the Paris Commune or the current-day Zappatistas in Mexico although they do not label themselves as anarchist) and for some based on anarcho-syndali st workplace councils). This type of truly participatory democracy is also the last thing these right-wing republican ideologues want to see and surely do not support in any way shape and form.

So, in what sense are these right-wing conservative ideologues "anarchists"?
The honest answer is that they simply are not; not even close.
 
 
-2 # dbrize 2013-10-04 17:07
dk:

You are asking a valid question to those whose comprehension accepts any epitaph so long as it is directed at the "right" people. :)

As you are well aware, Warren is playing to the home crowd here with her choice of terms. The only other conclusion is the thought that her Harvard Law training was bereft of linguistics.

Your admirable attempt to point out error even in one with whom you might find agreement on some issues is more than the true believers can abide, hence red color marks your comment. Ah well, do not be dissuaded from calling it as you see it.
 
 
0 # kalpal 2013-10-10 03:42
The Tea Party ardently desires to penalize all who are not rich or are not members of the Tea Party.
 
 
+64 # MJnevetS 2013-10-04 11:26
Quoting L. Smith:
Tea partiers are by definition not anarchists."
Okay, let's discuss that belief. Grover Norquist said "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Is that the statement of someone who wants ANY government. Further, when you state "Tea partiers are by definition not anarchists" that begs the question: What is your definition of Tea Party? Dictionary.com gives this definition (which is mirrored elsewhere) "2. A conservative political movement in the U.S. that opposes taxes and government spending." If you remove taxes and government spending, you have removed government. As Ms. Warren properly pointed out, it is only through taxes and government spending that we are able to pay our military, law enforcement, fire fighters, upkeep roads, etc. The alternative is anarchy. Ironically, I recently saw a bumper-sticker on a commercial vehicle which stated: "I built my business, not the government" The fact that it was on a vehicle which operates on roads maintained by the government shows the true disconnect of people swayed by the Tea Party. I assure you, that person did not build the roads, carry the mail, assure police protection against theft or robbery which allowed him to even open his doors to the public. I would love to hear your definition of Tea Party. It would be most informative to hear the specifics of your belief as opposed to platitudes.
 
 
+68 # mebemo 2013-10-04 11:43
Stirring up emotion is not necessarily a bad thing in a democracy, depending on the aim of the stirring. Without the rousing of public emotion, would we have seen slavery's abolition, women's suffrage, Hitler's defeat, the Clean Air Act, etc. etc.?

Personally I find Senator Warren perfectly civil in her tone as well as her reasoning, once you accept the premise that we're all in this together.
 
 
+31 # BradFromSalem 2013-10-04 12:01
My, my how can your sensitve eyeballs handle all that name calling. Terrible, terrible. This, what do you call me? Libtard. That's it. This Libtard notices how offended when your endorsed policies are described as "thinly veiled anarchism". I hope no children are around to see the vile name calling the Senator is engaging in. It is just that type of behavior that makes our children lose faith in our democracy. For one I think it is high F-ing time we stop being so damn polite to people that want to shred the US Constitution by passing laws by extortion when following the rules of law don't agree with their agenda. Both Parties? No, sorry we passed under that bridge about one Ronald Reagan ago.
 
 
+12 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-10-05 10:11
According to your world, putting lead in children's toys and have meat crawling with deadly bacteria is just merely "raising hell" and causing needless emotions. You live in your world and I'll live in mine which includes Elizabeth Warren.
 
 
+3 # Reyn 2013-10-07 17:12
Mr or Ms. Smith --

I am not going to vote you down - I don't do that - I am however going to respond. I don't know the tea party people that you do. You may well know wonderful, thoughtful people who are nothing like what Senator Warren describes. However, I too know tea party members - in fact, though if you knew where I worked this would bother you, some work with me. The tea party here is dominated by a group called Objectivists -- who are followers of Ayn Rand, and it is no exaggeration at all to say that the group at our institute are in fact and in point, in favor of no government at all - they believe everyone would immediately rationally be able to deal with one another for mutual benefit on every issue, and they actually try (though failing, because frankly I'm as well educated as any of them and more socially adept) to make fun of me for believing that we should have an army, air traffic controllers, public thruways (they think they should be private) and paid ambulances. I prefer your batch of tea partiers, but I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't let me turn mine in to trade. From where I sit, Senator Warren was actually too gentle on them.

Kind thoughts.
 
 
0 # Narwhalin 2013-10-08 08:37
Quoting Reyn:
Mr or Ms. Smith --

I am not going to vote you down - I don't do that - I am however going to respond.


Reyn, Thanks for that! My comments have been voted down, but not really addressed. It leaves me with a sense of wonder- do these people really disagree, or do they just not understand? Of course, many prefer this anti-intellectu al approach, as it permits one to disagree without risking the embarrassment of being proven wrong or the shattering of their belief system! Why worry?

Thank you to those who have the courage to debate!
 
 
+1 # kalpal 2013-10-10 03:41
At what point has the Tea Party spoken in a civil tone to anyone who was not giving it money?
 
 
+111 # universlman 2013-10-04 10:18
This woman is far too sensible to have her views accepted in this crazyhouse.
 
 
+40 # Barbara K 2013-10-04 11:47
Senator Warren is spot on and knows what she is talking about and how to explain whatever it is she is talking about at any time. She has their number and is a very smart lady. She is smarter than the entire lot of Republibaggers in the entire Congress. You Rock, Senator Warren! Go get them! And thank you, we need many more just like you.

..
 
 
-18 # dkonstruction 2013-10-04 12:26
Quoting Barbara K:
Senator Warren is spot on ..


If you believe she is "spot on" then please define "anarchist". She is right to criticize the right-wing republican ideologues and demagogues but they are in no way shape or form anarchists. In this, she is "spot off".
 
 
+11 # Barbara K 2013-10-04 14:25
dkon:
Well, what do you think an anarchist is? She said we are NOT a country of anarchists, so what is your definition?
 
 
+16 # universlman 2013-10-04 14:39
Full Definition of ANARCHIST from Merriam-Webster:
1. a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2. a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
 
 
+13 # Tje_Chiwara 2013-10-05 06:29
Anarchists believe that the political and social order must be destroyed before any improvement can be made in political system. Read Georges Sorel "Reflections on Violence" to understand the believe in the cleansing value of violence. What the Republican Conservatives are doing is Economic Violence - destroying the ability of government to do its job, trashing the full faith and credit of the US on many levels. It's like throwing a bomb into a badly running machine and defending that action because the machine wasn't running well. They are anarchists. They want THEIR democracy, where THEY have determined what the "people" want. (No voting really appreciated there . . . )
 
 
-8 # Narwhalin 2013-10-05 16:40
Quoting Tje_Chiwara:
Anarchists believe that the political and social order must be destroyed before any improvement can be made in political system. Read Georges Sorel "Reflections on Violence" to understand the believe in the cleansing value of violence. What the Republican Conservatives are doing is Economic Violence - destroying the ability of government to do its job, trashing the full faith and credit of the US on many levels. It's like throwing a bomb into a badly running machine and defending that action because the machine wasn't running well. They are anarchists. They want THEIR democracy, where THEY have determined what the "people" want. (No voting really appreciated there . . . )


This is a silly caricature...I think would enlighten you to know that there are many anarchists who fundamentally oppose force (unlike Warren- who worships the most destructive instrument of force and authoritarianis m humankind has ever known, the state). Thus, it would be impossible for that type of anarchist to act with aggressive violence in the way you describe here. Of course, there are many different people in the anarchy movement- some of whom do advocate violence. However, it is not a theme that runs through all anarchic philosophy. Again, this is in contrast to the pro-authority "statist" philosophy which MUST resort to force.
 
 
-6 # Narwhalin 2013-10-05 16:40
Quoting Tje_Chiwara:
Anarchists believe that the political and social order must be destroyed before any improvement can be made in political system. Read Georges Sorel "Reflections on Violence" to understand the believe in the cleansing value of violence. What the Republican Conservatives are doing is Economic Violence - destroying the ability of government to do its job, trashing the full faith and credit of the US on many levels. It's like throwing a bomb into a badly running machine and defending that action because the machine wasn't running well. They are anarchists. They want THEIR democracy, where THEY have determined what the "people" want. (No voting really appreciated there . . . )


This is a silly caricature...I think would enlighten you to know that there are many anarchists who fundamentally oppose force (unlike Warren- who worships the most destructive instrument of force and authoritarianis m humankind has ever known, the state). Thus, it would be impossible for that type of anarchist to act with aggressive violence in the way you describe here. Of course, there are many different people in the anarchy movement- some of whom do advocate violence. However, it is not a theme that runs through all anarchic philosophy. Again, this is in contrast to the pro-authority "statist" philosophy which MUST resort to force.
 
 
+1 # Tje_Chiwara 2013-10-06 05:41
Quoting Narwhalin:
...I think would enlighten you to know that there are many anarchists who fundamentally oppose force

I suppose there may be some "moderate" anarchists out there who concede the need for some "rules" and sense of order, but the philosophy does not admit that . . . And pray tell, when there is no rule or common accepted principles of comity, how does one get what one wants? You're like that hippie farmer in Easy Rider, sowing like Millet's sower, but on dry unbroken barren ground. What you call "Statism" is simply civilization, which must have some means to resolve disputes, call it force, if you don't like, or maybe a big, crowd-packed time-out . . . neither of which really fits in with dreamy Anarchism . . . Please advise where this non-force-drive n state of anarchy exists anywhere on this planet?
 
 
-5 # Narwhalin 2013-10-06 13:08
Quoting Tje_Chiwara:
I suppose there may be some "moderate" anarchists out there who concede the need for some "rules" and sense of order, but the philosophy does not admit that

Who defines "the philosophy?" If we must go with your definition, I guess I am out...Also, who defines moderate? Why do "rules" necessarily lead to "sense of order?" With all the "civilization" spread throughout the world via states, why is the world not more orderly? I guess we just can't seem to get "the right people" who are powerful yet uncorrupted! Who's dreaming now?!
Quoting Tje_Chiwara:
...when there is no rule or common accepted principles of comity, how does one get what one wants?

How do you get a burger at the burger stand? Do you point a gun at them, or do you hand them currency? Why do you choose not to force someone to hand you a burger- is it because you would go to jail, or because it is wrong?
Anarchy does not affect "common accepted principles of comity" like murder, rape, theft, etc. so I guess I don't understand the question.
Quoting Tje_Chiwara:
What you call "Statism" is simply civilization...Please advise where this non-force-driven state of anarchy exists anywhere on this planet?


Statism and "civilization" are definitely not synonyms! In fact, civilization is the result not of force, but mutual exchange. Force is a tool of animals...
In Detroit entrepreneurshi p has flourished as regulations go unenforced- coincidence?
 
 
-3 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 06:40
She is backed by a big political party that will probably promote her (or maybe Clinton) for president in the next election. The party she works for owes major millions for its convention alone to the billionaires and their corporations. The president has to pay back the debt of the party. Without the backing of the party, E. Warren would have to go it alone as an independent, without tv commercials and without the public relations machine of the big party. She wouldn't be included in the tv debates, probably, as an independent. She must feel she needs the money the big party has, and it certainly needs the big money that the billionaires have. So, I don't expect great change from a president endorsed by either big party. I think we need to select a large group of competent people willing to run as independents. I wish E. Warren would be among them.
 
 
-3 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 06:35
I'd like to hear her ask for regulation of the commodity farmers, or for major changes in the farm bill. There, she says, voluntary regulation is OK. Why? There is no profit for corn and soy farmers to grow a cover crop during the 8 months of the year when corn and soy are not growing. Because these two crops, heavily subsidized by our taxes, are enormously profitable to grow, the big farms that grow these traded commodities have no incentive, financially, to plant a cover crop. It's work and there's no profit in it. But because there is nothing holding the soil in place for 8 months of the year, the soil, and all its nutrients, pesticides and herbicides, flow off the farm every rainfall and into the rivers and streams, causing shallow waterways and high floods, both at great expense to the tax payer since these are cleaned up by public money. The rivers and streams flow into the gulf of Mexico and create an algae bloom, followed by a huge dead zone. These are crimes in my opinion and losses to all the public, and Elizabeth Warren says to them, "The farmers should voluntarily plant cover crops." Yeah, and banks should voluntarily be honest and less greedy, too.
 
 
+25 # interested_voter 2013-10-04 10:22
Right on, Senator Warren. I wish all those sensible Americans who agree would take the time to remind their members of Congress of this vision. They are hearing mostly from those who fear and hate government.
 
 
-3 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 06:42
I don't believe our congress people are ignorant of the desire of human beings; I think they need the money donated by the others.
 
 
-15 # HerbR 2013-10-04 10:31
Sounds good, as a headline,
BUT : "country of anarchists" ? Is there- can there be- such a thing as that ? Ordinary language would not grasp this. CAN Anarchists even HAVE a whole country ? There must be a country in which, or to which, they are anarchs, yes ?
 
 
+13 # Barbara K 2013-10-04 14:28
HerbR: She said we are NOT a country of anarchists. Did you miss the "NOT" word? She isn't saying we are a nation of anarchists, she says NOT a nation .....


..
 
 
+26 # dick 2013-10-04 10:57
They aren't anarchists. They would LOVE a TOTALitarian Big Bro that would BRUTALLY IMPOSE their choices. They are in the midst of a racist tantrum that is spiraling into CRISES. They actually prefer structure, & admire strength. They need adults who will deny them their Terrible Two "demands" & relegate them to a prolonged time-out. Steadfastly. EXTREMELY FIRMLY. Absolutely no reward for ugly tantrums. No need to provide them "cover." That is rewarding evil. Make them accept RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY. NO fig leaves.
 
 
-47 # MidwesTom 2013-10-04 11:02
We cannot all work for the government, but current trends indicate that we might be within 25 years. Government just keeps growing, and the percentage paying for it keeps shrinking. You cannot tell me that we could cut 20% at the Department of Energy, or the Department of Education and find any disruption in our lives. Cutting Government is not anarchy, it is simply necessary.
 
 
+30 # dkonstruction 2013-10-04 12:27
Quoting MidwesTom:
We cannot all work for the government, but current trends indicate that we might be within 25 years. Government just keeps growing, and the percentage paying for it keeps shrinking. You cannot tell me that we could cut 20% at the Department of Energy, or the Department of Education and find any disruption in our lives. Cutting Government is not anarchy, it is simply necessary.


The biggest part of the federal budget and by far the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars is the "defense" (warfare) and "national security budget but of course you don't call for any cuts there let alone the massive cuts that should be made.
 
 
+31 # Old Man 2013-10-04 15:14
Then cut The Defense Departments budget by about 50% and you should have no problems. We haven't won any Wars since WWII, so why not cut it?
 
 
+5 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 06:55
1.Provide for the national defense.
2.Put rules in place rules, like traffic lights and bank regulations, that are fair and transparent.
3.Build the things together that none of us can build alone - roads, schools, power grids - the things that give everyone a chance to succeed.
---We could certainly cut a lot from military spending if we had a sane international relations agenda instead of a weapons-sales and imperialist one. But the second two functions of the government are so needed, and these are the two that republicans want to cut most. ---It would be great to have a government that would regulate business to prevent monopoly, pollution, and plutocracy. We need people in the government who are not politician if we want to get a governemt that will regulate business. ---It would be great to have a government that would systematically, consistently and efficiently deliver the necessary public structures needed by society (see above list) instead of systematically, consistently and deceitfully work to destroy the ability of the government to provide those necessary structures. WE need a not-for-profit government of the people. for that to happen, we need non-politicians not backed by political parties to get into our government positions and make up the majority of our government representatives . WE need to do it ourselves.
 
 
-32 # MidwesTom 2013-10-04 11:05
Remember Fresno CA, where homeless people are demanding more benefits, while at the same time farmers are offering $11 AND $12/hour plus a free lunch and transportation to and from work, and are desperate for hundreds of new workers. Government was become too generous in many cases.
 
 
+32 # dkonstruction 2013-10-04 12:30
Quoting MidwesTom:
Remember Fresno CA, where homeless people are demanding more benefits, while at the same time farmers are offering $11 AND $12/hour plus a free lunch and transportation to and from work, and are desperate for hundreds of new workers. Government was become too generous in many cases.


So you blame California's economic woes on the homeless but don't mention at all the giant corporations like Enron (way back when) and more recently JP Morgan that manipulated the energy markets and cost the state billions. Nor do you mention the corporations that get huge tax breaks (particularly large California defense contractors and giant agri-business firms. To ignore their rape and plunder of the state (and the country as a whole) and instead blame it on people living on the streets because this country does not consider housing to be a human right is nothing less than disgusting and reflects the true depravity of this culture as a whole that has no sense of humanity, feeling or empathy for anyone in need. Fuck 'em right but keep giving the corporations and the rest of the 1% everything they "need". Truly disgusting.
 
 
+18 # pbbrodie 2013-10-04 12:38
Oh no!!!!! Not more of Tom's apocryphal data?!
Where is your link to this information, Tom?
I very seriously doubt that there is one single farmer anywhere in the USA offering anyone $11 and $12 an hour plus free lunch and transportation and also desperate for workers. You are so full of hooey. Your arguments would be much better if you would stick to facts or at the very least, use less ridiculous made up facts.
 
 
-7 # MidwesTom 2013-10-04 19:26
AP story earlier this week about labor shortages in Fresno California. Associated Press was the originator, and Bloomberg carried the report.
 
 
+2 # cybersleuth58 2013-10-08 04:10
Thanks: I googled it - I couldn't find it. Nevertheless your foolish nature is showing. I will bet you've not gotten within MILES of a homeless shelter or soup kitchen bc your post shows either willful ignorance or ASTOUNDING stupidity of homelessness. It is a multidimensiona l problem. Apparently you missed the part about the fact that we have homeless bc all of the state hospitals have closed. So most are so mentally disabled they don't know what planet they live on.
 
 
+8 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 07:11
Here's a bit of info that might be closer to home than California for a Midwesterner: the farm bill. The farm bill supports big farms and not small farms. It supports commodity crops (corn and soy) and not fruits and vegetables. Commodity crops are so well subsidized that the huge farms that grow these crops four months of the year don't need to grow anything else. That leaves the land vacant 8 months of the year, including the spring when the snow melts and there are rains, and the fall when there are thunderstorms. With nothing in the ground to hold the soil in place, the top soil runs off the land and into the streams and rivers taking with it the fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides generously strewn on it, paid for by the farm bill. Because it is so profitable to grow these crops on a big scale, two thirds of Iowa is covered with these crops. The cost to dredge the lakes, streams and rivers is enormous and the dredging does not prevent the flooding that results from no roots in the ground to hold the rains and melted snows. The cost of flooding is enormous. Then all that fertilizer and all that poison flows into the waterways right out to the ocean, resulting in the dead zone in the gulf of Mexico--a HUGE loss to all of us. What would change this is a regulation in the farm bill that commodity farmers must grow a cover crop before and after their commodity crop. But, those who want less government say that would be too much interference from government.
 
 
+1 # Merschrod 2013-10-05 12:53
Kathy, enough with moi covercrops. You need to check the % of farmers who do use covercrops - green manure - to hold moisture over the winter.
 
 
0 # cybersleuth58 2013-10-08 04:06
Even if it IS true - I googled it & could not bring it up - there are thousands of homeless vs. how many jobs? Homeless ppl are usually VERY mentally disabled - that's WHY they are homeless. Homeless here are so desperate they wash windshields. I seriously doubt most of the people Tom refers to are mentally stable enough to work. I'd love to see Tom hire some paranoid schizophrenics to work at his business. Until he GETS what the problems inherent in homelessness are he should STFU.
 
 
-2 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 06:56
Shallow thinking.
 
 
0 # cybersleuth58 2013-10-08 04:03
How many homeless are there vs. what? A few hundred (at BEST) jobs at a rate that won't even pay RENT for a month? You do realize that even a job at $11/HR means loss of Medicaid (all medication, mental health benefits, etc) & housing? Last I heard, $11/hr won't cover, food, and medication.

Further - many homeless are homeless bc they are mentally ill.

Go ahead, Tom, I dare you. I triple dog dare you to hire a dozen paranoid schizophrenics living on the street at your business.
 
 
+21 # dick 2013-10-04 11:06
It is extremely disappointing that Warren refuses to call out the T-Party on their vitriolic racism. They HATE "Obamacare" BECAUSE it is Obama's, "Of the n....rs, By the n....rs, For the n....rs." They have no visceral hatred of ANY of the ACA provisions. They EMBRACE them in Medicare. If Social Security was a black man's, they'd HATE it. If NASCAR was controlled by blacks, they'd HATE it. If the NRA was controlled by African Americans, they'd start the White Nationalist Automatics. Pigs.
 
 
0 # cybersleuth58 2013-10-08 04:13
I agree but I think she sticks to what she knows best - which is finance and banking which is her area of scholarship. She realizes it would so absolutely NO good whatsoever since the people who are part of the TParty don't respect anything she says anyway.
 
 
+16 # goodsensecynic 2013-10-04 11:08
Ah children!

If they'd only act like children, we'd all be better off!

Alas, they act like conniving, vicious, meat-headed, addle-pated, supine servants of the idle rich, the plutocrats, the kleptocrats, the greedy, hypocritical and pompous dollar-besotted rulers of the republic ... and that means you, Bill Gates!

Alas, also, Thoreau was an anarchist only by a flawed process of (self)promotion . Nonetheless, we'd ALSO be better off if Elizabeth Warren and some of the other decent members of Congress (Bernie Sanders being the most obvious case in point), would become anarchists, disavow authoritarian hierarchy and hideous gaps in wealth between the obscenely rich and the desperately poor, etc., etc., etc.

Alas (3rd time), anarchy is too good for us. We must mature as a civilization and as a species before we can come close to deserving it.
 
 
+20 # bmiluski 2013-10-04 11:09
hen a group of people hold a government hostage because they don't like a law that's anarchy.
The ACA has been a law for 3 years. The supreme court has upheld it and the majority of the people in the USA voted YES to the ACA when they voted to re-elect President Obama.
 
 
-2 # Vardoz 2013-10-04 11:11
We have a govt that has chosen to abandon the needs of the people and our health, safety and welfare in favor of the elite and powerful. We have a corrupt president who has lost his moral center and reps who think it's OK to sacrifice lives for bribes. Our govt is in a moral tail spin leading to our demise as a nation that has lost any self respect. Billions to spy on the poor, for profit prisons, tens of billions to the military as children go hungry, a corrupt Supreme Court, protections, rights, accountability and oversight flushed, the TPP , Fukushimna, Global Climate change and let to poor die! All for what?
 
 
-40 # shraeve 2013-10-04 11:12
I had some hope for Warren. But now I see she is just another Democrat.

Her list of the three functions of government is far more misleading than anything the TEA Party has said. The USA is not almost $17 trillion in debt because of those three basic functions of government. We have all that debt because too many non-poor, non-desperate people see the government as a cash cow.
 
 
+21 # pbbrodie 2013-10-04 12:42
Yeah, those non-poor, non-desperate defense contractors sure do see the government as a cash cow. If we eliminated half the defense budget, there would be no deficit.
If the US isn't in debt because of defense, then it most certainly isn't what Tea Partiers like to call entitlements.
 
 
+5 # shraeve 2013-10-04 20:51
You are right. We spend more money on "defense" than anything else. We could start on the path to a sane budget by closing most of our military bases abroad. Then we could look at the equipment that we are contracting for and decide what we really need to stay safe.
 
 
+3 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 07:19
We could take a look at our foreign policies and see what the goal of our foreign relations is. If our goal were to have harmonious relations with other countries, we could probably come much closer to that goal than we are coming with the goals we currently have. Personally, I don't see saving money, reducing taxes, as the reason to have more harmonious relations with other countries, but it would certainly be a by product of peaceful goals that spending on military would go down considerably. ---We need to think about how to transition employment in our country from weapons making to more beneficial industries.
 
 
+28 # walt 2013-10-04 11:18
Reagan started it all trying to convince people that "government is the problem." After eight years of Reagan and another eight of of GW Bush, we watched as our government was sold off to the highest bidders. And sadly, much of that remains today. Republicans have embraced that thinking and have even shown that they will shut down the government at the expense of the people.

We need a government of, by and for the people and to yank much of what has been cornered by the corporate world from greedy hands. At least with government we have a say in what goes on and government is answerable to the people who vote.

Try and vote in a corporation!
 
 
-1 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 07:26
We need a government of the people. Yes. yes and yes. WE need to identify people who are not politicians whom we would like to be our government. You probably know someone who you'd rather have represent you than the people who are in government now. We people need to get organized and get active in selecting people we want to represent us, at all levels of government, and vote for these non politicians. Think non politician. The parties are not able to finance their huge expenses without the support of the billionaires, so they can not be for the people. We need to elect independents, through our own work. Huge undertaking, but to get a different result, we need a different strategy. To get a government of the people, the people need to select it, not the big expensive parties (funded by more money than the people can afford.) We can't wait for the party politicians to rewrite the constitution or to pass laws limiting their wealth. We need to organize campaigns for our own candidates and run those campaigns without spending big money. I think we can if we try it.
 
 
+18 # phillyprogress 2013-10-04 11:24
I sincerely hope that Sen. Warren has lots of extremely alert bodyguards and staff members around her constantly, because those whose aim is to tear apart our nation from within --the Tea Party radical regressives-- may very well be targeting her as I input this, to shut her up. That's how powerful Elizabeth Warren's clarion call to action is.
 
 
-8 # shraeve 2013-10-04 20:56
You might be right, but so what? Every political party or movement has a few violent people in it. That doesn't mean that that most of the TEA Party is bad.

Most of us understand that terrorism does not work. I want to kill progressives politically, not physically. That would only make martyrs out of them. I wish Warren a long, healthy life and a prompt retirement.
 
 
+20 # Agricanto 2013-10-04 11:33
It was conservatives (lead by Grover Norquist) who want to drown government in a bathtub. It was Ronald Reagan who said government was the problem. The right detests federal government because it is the federal government that challenges their institutional racism, gerrymandered districts, voter suppression laws, segregated schools, rigged elections, and everything else that Southerners and their bigott friends think is their God-given right to do what their prejudice and ignorance dictates.

I am disgusted to see the speed with which right-wing trolls on this site weigh in with obfuscation and denial every time something is posted by Elizabeth Warren, or Chris Hedges (who is an anarchist, but that deserves a discussion that can't happen on RSN because the trolls define the discussion) or Paul Krugman, or Robert Reich, etc. I think wee need intelligent discussion on Elizabeth Warren because many of us would like to see her run for president. But instead, we have to write about how wrong some post is from the right. If liberals were more protective off their gains and institutions, we would not have to fight for hard-won gains made decades ago.
 
 
-6 # shraeve 2013-10-04 21:03
Norquist is an idiot. You can't "starve the beast". If you try, the beast will merely devour our children's future. The beast must be deliberately dismantled.

You are wrong about race. Many of us voted for Obama in 2008. I did not completely turn against Obama until he cynically used the tragedy at Sandy Hook to try to take away our guns.

Many of us don't care one way or the other about Obamacare. But Obama is going to get a Second Amendment Congress in 2014.
 
 
+13 # Marlene 2013-10-04 11:47
And limited government is not refusing to abide by the law (ACA) and shutt
ing government down completely when they do not get their way.
 
 
+4 # dick 2013-10-04 11:57
The extreme right is NOT anarchist, it is white nationalist. They believe the ONLY way now to stave off rainbow democracy is by triggering a Race War, which they will win via #s, weapons. Non racist whites will be forced to choose between dying beside minorities or groveling for protection from KKK "soviets," local white supremacist Death Panels. They WANT martial law, hoping
the white generals will side with them, arm them, protect them from patriots, armed women & minorities. "Bring it ON!" they say.
 
 
+15 # nmoliver 2013-10-04 16:18
I think Sen. Warren and others who use the term "anarchists" are just trying to be understated and decorous. No, these people are not anarchists. They love big government when it comes to making wars, regulating women's bodies, and doling out subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. They support big government when, and only when, it serves giant industries and the war machine. They seek power by staging coups, not by winning votes. Yes, there is a term for these people, and it is not anarchist. It is fascist.
 
 
+5 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 07:35
You didn't mention subsidies to the agribusiness chemical companies. Fossil fuels and banks are not the only industries getting huge sums from the government. The farm bill subsidies go mainly to pay for (Monsanto's) genetically engineered corn and soy seeds, pesticides and herbicides. Oh, and the insurance industry. A huge portion of the farm subsidies go the these big farmers to pay their crop insurance. No part of the farm bill, by the way, pays for the flood damage expenses, the water pollution clean up expenses, the great loss to everyone that is the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The subsidies are to benefit the chemical corporations and the insurance corporations. Absolutely, they want that money.
 
 
-1 # shraeve 2013-10-07 22:36
Nmoliver, you are so wrong. We do not want government to do any of those things. You are just creating a straw person.

We libertarians just want government to fix the roads, deliver the mail, and defend us from enemies, foreign and domestic (criminals). We want government to stop using public money for the benefit of private individuals (the majority of whom are not poor).
 
 
0 # draypoker 2013-10-08 08:35
It's interesting, from across the Atlantic, to see how fascism develops in the US. The random violence is much the same as in Europe, but the arguments are different. The main cause would seem to be ignorance and poor education.
 
 
+18 # Harold R. Mencher 2013-10-04 12:00
To be honest, I don't know where else to put this comment. Everything that is happening is linked to corporate takeover of our govt and the world.

If anyone has access to the Democracy Now program aired today, Friday, Oct. 4th, 2013, I would strongly suggest that you watch the first interview that takes place after the headline news which deals with the new international trade pact that makes all past trade pacts look like a walk in the park.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is fully backed by the Obama admin in all its glory. This trade agreement was fully developed by corporations who have put everything in it that gives them full and complete control over the rules of world trade. This interview on Democracy Now today should not only give you pause, but it should be included as part of Halloween night. It's that frightening and should scare the living hell out of you.

The TPP, if passed and signed by the world govts would in deed give corporations the power to override those govts. One of the key issues with the TPP is that it requires by law that any country that signs up for the TPP would be required to change their own laws that protect their their own people from being exposed to unsafe food, unsafe drinking water and unsafe air be changed to comply with the rules as defined by the TPP.

Please watch and listen to today's program of Democracy Now.

http://dncdn.dvlabs.com/ipod/dn2013-1004.mp4

The interview is 13 mins into the program
 
 
+13 # pbbrodie 2013-10-04 12:45
Thanks for this comment and I hope that many people will head your advice. The TPP is way more than frightening and is a complete world takeover by corporations and that is no exaggeration or hyperbole.
 
 
+6 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 07:42
while the news puts our attention elsewhere, and while we the people have no input in the TPP---it is the most comprehensive grab of power made by the corporations (mostly the chemical/big ag corporations, ie Monsanto, Dow, Dupont) ever. Obama has consistently, as bush did before him, supported these companies and promoted them in other countries. I haven't heard Elizabeth Warren take on these big ag/chemical corporations either. --
 
 
0 # cybersleuth58 2013-10-08 04:18
"I haven't heard Elizabeth Warren take on these big ag/chemical corporations either."

YET, give her time.
 
 
0 # cybersleuth58 2013-10-08 04:15
Thanks, I haven't watched Amy in a while. It is very scary - I don't know which part is worse. I'm very disappointed that Obama promised to get rid of NAFTA yet is sponsoring the TPP. It's an end run around the people.
 
 
+13 # MindDoc 2013-10-04 12:20
Let's hope there is still an ember of real American values and a workable Government of, by, and for the People. With checks, balances, and access of "We the People' to health care, a working infrastructure, rational and effective Government who understand that the government bashing, highly paid 'representative s' ARE the government, along with social security clerks, park rangers, accountants, and myriad others.

I agree with universlman (and echo EW's observation about the extent of cynicism) - Being sensible in today's political bubble formerly known as 'the People's House' is a prescription for being ridiculed, marginalized, ignored, or "primaried".

'Crazyhouse' indeed. The scary part is, to use the old cliche, the inmates are running the asylum! Funded by... us! With platinum healthcare, pensions, and all the tea one can drink. Who would ever predict our country and 'leadership' would come to this.

One can only hope Elizabeth Warren is right, that rationality will return. Though it's hard to change stripes on a creature such as Congress has become, and with its current cast of characters and corporate-dolla r allegiances above serving We the (real) People.

We need to rid 'clean House' in a major way, along with educating the public about some realities, beyond what is aired on Fox. And we need to overwhelm the phones and tweets and emails to Boehner, McConnell and the others who spout lies and distortions, and make it clear what THE PEOPLE really want.
 
 
0 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 07:49
I think we need to overwhelm the phones of our friends and neighbors who are the people. The media, the politicians, the political parties, the big corporations--t hese powers are not responsive to our phone calls, petitions, and tweets. We need to get ourselves into our government---so mething that we the people haven't even tried to do in my lifetime or maybe ever. WE have the technology today to communicate with each other quickly and inexpensively, and we can in fact organize campaigns for real non politicians whom we would like to represent us in our government. If we can elect a majority of such non politicians in our government, we could have a government of the people, and I think we could begin to make progress. Do you know someone you would like to represent you? Don't look to politicians, but someone with expertise in an area of public concern. WE need hundreds and hundreds of such people to run and be elected. There are thousands of them in our country.
 
 
+16 # Doll 2013-10-04 13:45
The air traffic controllers are on the job - but they are not getting paid.

My Niece, my twin brother's daughter has a husband that is an air traffic controller. He still hasn't been paid some money from during the sequestering. They are expecting a baby this month.

Nice work GOP!
 
 
-5 # MeridianWoman 2013-10-04 15:30
Elizabeth Warren has good points about reasons to have a government. I don't agree with her #1 rational, "to provide national defense" ... it's the same 'ol indoctrination. ..'gotta have it, or else' mentality.
Someday the future generations won't even know the word 'war', or at least look back on the barbaric days when people violently tribed against each.
I believe in government of the people, for the people by the geniuses.
http://www.geniocracy.org
 
 
+3 # pres92 2013-10-05 07:35
#MeridianWoman ... "to provide for the national defense" is fundamental to the establishment of the federal government, as stated in the preamble to the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
 
 
0 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 07:58
We don't need geniuses to run our government, such intelligent people with integrity and strong knowledge in a field of public concern, like organic farming, water management, soil management, renewable energy, permeable cement, and so on. These people already know solutions to many problems and would like to implement the solutions instead of obstruct them. No one, and especially not politicians, has expertise in every area of public concern. WE don't need a super hero, we need a large number of real human persons who do not work for, get funding from or represent multinational corporations or billionaires. We need to forget the notion that ordinary people (we the people) are not savvy enough to run our government. The people running our government are savvy alright but they are not running our government well. We the people can do a better job. We are not in the system to select and promote political candidates, so we need to create a new one that we organize and use to select and promote our own candidates, not politicians. The technology is there for us to communicate with each other. We aren't use to working together in this way. It's not polite to bring up politics. So many reasons we haven't done it before, but we need to do it now.
 
 
0 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 08:34
replace the word "such" with the word "just" in the first sentence. It was a typo.
 
 
+1 # Reyn 2013-10-07 17:16
I sincerely hope you are right, but that time is not now. I am as far to the Left as I rather suspect anyone on this board is - and I think we need a strong military. I admit that may have been colored by losing a friend from childhood on 9/11 (I'm originally from NYC) but still.
 
 
+8 # anarchteacher 2013-10-04 15:49
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/elizabeth-warren-statist-scold/

An "Anarchist" strikes back!
 
 
+2 # ishmael 2013-10-05 03:01
Replete with gradeschool-sty le name-calling. Written for naive idiots.
 
 
-1 # Narwhalin 2013-10-15 13:40
Quoting ishmael:
Replete with gradeschool-style name-calling. Written for naive idiots.


Oh, the irony!
 
 
+13 # nmoliver 2013-10-04 16:17
I think Sen. Warren and others who use the term "anarchists" are just trying to be understated and decorous. No, these people are not anarchists. They love big government when it comes to making wars, regulating women's bodies, and doling out subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. They support big government when, and only when, it serves giant industries and the war machine. They seek power by staging coups, not by winning votes. Yes, there is a term for these people, and it is not anarchist. It is fascist.
 
 
+3 # dbrize 2013-10-04 17:46
Well, "...these people..." include the current administration and most since 1963. 11-11-63 to be exact. That "coup" was de facto and carried out in essence by the same folks who have been calling the shots ever since. Bankers, Big oil, Corporate cronies and their activists in the MIC/CIA.

Senator Warren, Obama, ACA, "shutdowns" and "debt limits" Tea Party, etc, are little more than grist for the masses to keep them occupied while the shadow government operates as always.

As pointed out by a few perceptive souls, the defense budget grows, the military "toys" keep flowing, the "terrorists" are always lurking in the background as "existential threats" to the soccer Moms.

Liberty can only survive by giving it up. Freedom can prevail only if we become less free. War can only be avoided by making war. We can save money by spending money.

Odd thinking that.

But what the hell, Obama gave us ACA, who cares about debt, peace, freedom and liberty?

As the Lewis Carroll's queen said, "sometimes I've believed six impossible things before breakfast".
 
 
-1 # dbrize 2013-10-04 19:09
Pardon my finger slip...11-22-63 of course.
 
 
-4 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 08:07
Think tanks have been working out this global take over for many decades. It had to organize even before 1963. It is now, in its own estimation, "too big to fail." Not just banks, the whole crytocracy, plutocracy, global corporatocracy that is rearing its very ugly head more and more visibly daily. ---How to catch up as a people? We have not been in the habit all these decades of actively participating in the selection of our government representatives . We have waited for the political parties to tell us our choices. And now we see that whether we vote this way or that way, we get corporatocracy. The political parties are dependent on that money for their bosses' salaries, their tv ads, their showy conventions and for every expense of running the party. The people contribute insignificant amounts to those expenses. We need to jump ship. We need to stop voting politicians given to us by the political parties into our government. And we need to organize ourselves to select and elect people we know (not politicians backed by parties). we've never done it in my lifetime, but we need to do it now.
 
 
-2 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 08:24
I would like to believe in one "impossible" thing--- a government of the people. How can we the people communicate with each other, inexpensively, on our own budget, to select people from our own communities who have expertise in just one area of public concern (not politics) to represent us in government? We have thousands and thousands of people who have knowledge and who want solutions, who know solutions and would work in our government to implement solutions instead of obstructions to solutions. They will not be chosen by the political parties as candidates. We need to choose them ourselves. Hundreds of such people will together have knowledge of many fields of public concern. They will encounter a plate of tangled spaghetti but with patience and clarity and the support of the public, and each other, we the people can untangle the mess of laws and begin to turn the government into a tool to serve the needs of human persons instead of the desires of corporate persons. We need to be careful when selecting people to represent us not to select people who work for multinational corporations and look like experts in their field for that reason. Avoid. Avoid. Go for organic farmers, experts in renewable energy, and so on. I'm sure you can identify someone in your community, probably several people. Let's support a government of the people in concept, and then in action.
 
 
+7 # Walter J Smith 2013-10-04 16:58
I admire Elizabeth Warren, and pray for her most astounding success.

But this kind of language is incoherent: "When was the last time the anarchy gang called for regulators to go easier on companies that put lead in children's toys? Or for inspectors to stop checking whether the meat in our grocery stores is crawling with deadly bacteria? Or for the FDA to ignore whether morning sickness drugs will cause horrible deformities in our babies?

Seems to me the anarchists are constantly demanding these things. To say they never do them doesnt make sense.

They are thugs. Make it clear. We need clarity.
 
 
0 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 08:27
I like the way Senator Warren talks to banks. But, what has she said about the TPP? She favors voluntary self regulation of farms by farmers receiving huge subsidies to buy and sell ag/chemical corporations' products (genetically modified corn and soy and their companion herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers --all from the big chem/ag companies, Monsanto, Dow, Dupont.)
 
 
+1 # ishmael 2013-10-04 23:11
We shouldn't quibble about the definition of a term. There is a great deal of agreement that whatever else they are, GOPee types tend to be very selfish, backward-thinki ng people who are having a difficult time adjusting to the 21st century.
 
 
-3 # Narwhalin 2013-10-05 07:21
"These things did not appear by magic. In each instance, we made a choice as a people to come together. We made that choice because we wanted to be a country with a foundation that would allow anyone to have a chance to succeed."

Who is the "we" Senator Warren is referring to here? The pharmaceutical and insurance companies who wrote the ACA? Is she talking about the military industrial complex which benefits from endless foreign conflicts(and increasingly benefits by pursuing profits domestically)? Perhaps she means the Federal Reserve which makes the "magic" happen as they continuously pump more fake money into the economy to keep the charade alive for as long as is possible.

Implicitly, Warren is stating that absent government regulations our children would be devouring toys filled with lead while we would be constantly sick and dying after eating rotten food, and our only recourse would be to take baking soda pills which we thought was medicine! This all rests on the premise that companies enjoy killing their customers, and people are too stupid to fend for themselves. How long will people accept this backwards logic that the most corrupt and aggressive empire in the world is the only thing that can keep them safe from corruption and aggression?!
 
 
0 # Kathymoi 2013-10-05 08:29
I couldn't understand what you said.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN