Search This Blog

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Friedman of the NYT Bargains with Nonsense [The Grand Bargain]

Friedman of the NYT Bargains with Nonsense [The Grand Bargain]

Abstract: Thomas Friedman[1] pushes his questionable literary skills to the limit in an attempt to create a new and compelling sell of the Grand Bargain, a stale rehash of all the reasons why we should have our taxes increases. He thrusts and jives to highlight some of the weaknesses of Governor Christie of New Jersey and informs us why he is not suitable. He attempts to justify another stimulus in clumsy terms.

Overview:

Anytime we get a warm and sticky ladle of praise for any Republican from the Opinion Section of the Walter Duranty Papers[2]—aka [the near-bankrupt] New York Times, we have to look for the bait and the rusty hook upon which that person is dangled in bold hyperbole and maudlin song. The Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate for President since Dewey as their first choice for President. Pretending to be ever-so clever with their triple reverse baiting speckled with innuendo and whipped with the Race Card, we can never believe that they are serious. Today’s awkward propaganda piece from Thomas Friedman merely attempts to guide us down that sorry old wet ditch where there is only one real pathway and that is soggy, moldy and ends nowhere except oblivion.

How to best read my blogs:

[I offer extensive quotes in this blog so that the reader can view the exact language and can be confident that nothing was taken out of context or that nobody was misquoted. The easiest way to take in the salient points is to read the emphatic points in the quotes and then peruse my comments. Comments on my comments are always welcome: ryckki@gmail.com.]

We Begin:

“Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey isn’t going to run. That’s too bad. He had a chance to rescue the Republican Party from its dash to the cliff and make President Obama a better leader, too.” -- No Christie, No Bargain By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN OP-ED COLUMNIST Published: October 4, 2011

When I was trout fishing as a boy, we used to buy a small jar of white salmon eggs and open the lid and place in a warm spot overnight so that it was ripe and ready as bait for the next morning. When a hook was cast into a small stream with a single egg affixed upon the trident it left a slim white trail in the slowly running water and the fish followed this mystic signal from it sudden origin to their final end. Here, we are exposed to some vision of a White House candidate that could ostensibly benefit both parties. In the fishing analogy, above, that would be equivalent to having two jars prepared as such but the second one having the red eggs. So, we would potentially get double the prize when the sucker bit the barb. This article is theatrically fishy in both aroma and content. We are going to get a double debt whammy out of this kind of thinking.

This absurd statement begs for a clarification of this enigma:

“Here’s why: When the G.O.P. presidential candidates were asked during their debate on Aug. 11 whether any of them would accept a budget deal that involved $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases — and they all said no — the Republican Party officially became a danger to itself and to the country.”-- No Christie, No Bargain

A dumb question rejected. “No” becomes a platform for the rabid left. A casual question thus becomes some kind of lynch pin that holds the opposition and forces them to ease off on taxes, the lifeline of the cancerous government we now live under. The Republicans need no salvation; they hold the purse strings and make take the Senate next year as well. This comment is some form of political bait.

“The G.O.P. became a danger to the country because it announced, in effect, that it would not be a partner for the kind of Grand Bargain that many economists believe we need — something that provides more near-term investment in the economy that spurs job growth, combined with a credible long-term plan to increase tax revenues and trim entitlements so the country’s debt-to-G.D.P. ratio stays in a safe range. Such a Grand Bargain would simultaneously boost the economy and optimism by its economic logic and the mere fact of the two parties working together.”-- No Christie, No Bargain

The twists and turns of this paragraph are like fishing the potholes on a river and harboring the excitement that the very next hole will camouflage the biggest fish in the forest. The introduction of [1] a Grand Bargain and [2] that bargain slipping away forms the basis of this screed. This is because, without any numbers or sound economic analysis, the Grand Bargain becomes the pea under the shells on the old sidewalk shell game. The pea is not under any of the shells. But the haunting thrill of having tried to guess where the pea rests is the essence of the game. You are not going to win but you sure have a grand time and, heck, the rich will pay anyway.

There is no Grand Bargain, but the twiddling and hokum in the next paragraph seems to show that this approach is solid and a squandered opportunity for the Republicans to join in with the Tax Follies and drive us deeper into debt.

We now rest on the opinion of an Expert!

““Cutting $10 in spending for every $1 in tax increases would result in $9 in net tax reduction. That’s because lower spending today means lower taxes tomorrow, and limiting the future path of government spending does limit future taxes, as Milton Friedman, the late Nobel laureate and conservative icon, so clearly explained. Promising never to raise taxes, without reaching a deal on spending, really means a high and rising commitment to future taxes.””-- Tyler Cowen, an economics professor at George Mason University [quoted in this article]

Cowen is a Harvard PhD and a libertarian economist. He is funded by Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation so his work is used as a shill comment to attempt to convince us that even conservative Republicans are turning to Obama’s side and wantonly call for tax hikes for our salvation. Not so.

We must work on the actual content of this trial balloon [that nobody supports thus a farce]

Here are the current US fiscal numbers [all in trillions] from USdebtclock.org:

Item Trillions

Spending 3.567

Tax Revenue 2.281

Deficit 1.286 [40% of the spending]

70% of Revenue 1.5967 [paid by the top 10%]

National debt 14.801

Deficit as % of Debt 8.69%

Year Debt GDP 5% Growth GDP 10% Growth

2011 14.801 14.957 14.957

2012 16.087 15.705 16.453

2013 17.373 16.490 18.098

2014 18.659 17.315 19.908

2015 19.945 18.180 21.899

2016 21.231 19.089 24.088

2017 22.517 20.044 26.497

2018 23.803 21.046 29.147

2019 25.089 22.098 32.062

2020 26.375 23.203 35.268

2021 27.661 24.363 38.795

At our current rate, the debt will be $27.6 at the end of 2021. At 5% growth in GDP our debt will still be higher running the same deficit with NO new spending. At 10% annual sustained growth, we can reach almost 39% but such growth is impossible.

Note that our deficit runs almost 9% of GDP [$14.957] thus we increase our total external debt by that amount each year. Our current debt-to-GDP is 14.801/14.957 or 98.957 % of our GDP. The tables below shows how our debt will proceed if we continue on with this destructive deficit. In a decade, we will be in worse shape than Greece or Portugal. Notice that a mere 3.9 trillion reduction in 27.7 trillions is nothing. The GDP must increase wildly and balance off the debt. The 3.9 is only about 400 bln per year back loaded and we need to cut spending by 2 trillions [deficit plus debt service].

This massive debt is not even discussed in this article.

“By refusing to embrace Simpson-Bowles as the basis of a Grand Bargain, and instead offering a watered-down version, Obama has left a gap for a sane Republican or independent candidate. Why was Christie popular among G.O.P. moderates and independents? Because he seemed ready to tell hard truths that Obama has started to shrink from. Had Christie — a moderate on gun control, climate change and immigration who has also backed Simpson-Bowles — run and won significant support, he would have forced Obama back to the center.”-- No Christie, No Bargain

The Simpson-Bowles idea is a regurgitation of what President Obama needed to hear […to cut the debt by $3.9 trillion by 2020]. A fast calculation shows that this is useless. That is less than is necessary.

“Then, instead of a race between the Democratic left and the Republican right — in which the whole country would lose because the winner would not have had a mandate for the real change we need — we would have had a race between the Democratic center, independents and the Republican center. Then the whole country would win. Because whoever captured the presidency would have a mandate to actually implement some version of the Grand Bargain needed to get growth going again — and growth is the only sustainable cure for unemployment, the deficit and inequality.”-- No Christie, No Bargain

Conclusions:

[1] The GDP cannot grow that fast under any circumstances.

[2] The EU, vaulted exponents of Keynes and such are NOT employing the Krugman Solution[3] [unlimited spending or Grand Bargain].

[3] The Democrats will NOT tolerate any spending cuts and need even more for social spending in the future.

[4] We either cut spending and also eliminate nearly ½ of all government jobs or we go broke.

[5] Even a growth of 1% in GDP is not possible with the virulent anti-business hysteria in the Obama Administration.

rycK [a 5th generation Californian in exile]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com



[1] Thomas L. Friedman of the NYT is Certainly Uncertain about Some Things. But, Not Others.

http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/08/thomas-l-friedman-of-nyt-is-certainly.html

Friedman of the NYT Mumbles Weird Songs about Global Weirding. Propaganda at its Finest as he Defends Junk Science.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2010/02/18/friedman_of_the_nyt_mumbles_weird_songs_about_global_weirding_propaganda_at_its_finest_as_he_defends_junk_science.thtml

http://tinyurl.com/y9sr3gy

Friedman Bawls about Balls and Can Show Nothing. EcoNazism and Propaganda at Work.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2009/04/08/friedman_bawls_about_balls_and_can_show_nothing_econazism_and_propaganda_at_work.thtml

Friedman of the NYT Mumbles about the Real Generation X. He Stares into the Abyss and Sees Himself. http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/12/08/friedman_of_the_nyt_mumbles_about_the_real_generation_x_he_stares_into_the_abyss_and_sees_himself.thtml

Friedman Calls on Pakistan to Protest: It takes a Village [or many Village Idiots]?

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/12/03/friedman_calls_on_pakistan_to_protest_it_takes_a_village_[or_many_village_idiots].thtml

Friedman Calls Code Red and then Instructs Us in Confidence: Depression is Here. Believe in O’Bozo http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/23/friedman_calls_code_red_and_then_instructs_us_in_confidence_depression_is_here_believe_in_o%e2%80%99bozo.thtml

The NYT’s Friedman’s Flat Propagandistic Thinking on Auto Bailouts: Ignore Unions and Blame Management.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/12/the_nyt%e2%80%99s_friedman%e2%80%99s_flat_propagandistic_thinking_on_auto_bailouts_ignore_unions_and_blame_management.thtml

Friedman of the NYT Drinks the Obama Kool-Aid and Sails off into the Depression Era in Song and Dance.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/05/friedman_of_the_nyt_drinks_the_obama_kool-aid_and_sails_off_into_the_depression_era_in_song_and_dance.thtml

Friedman of the NYT [briefly] Collides with Economic Reality. Something is Wrong Here. Depression on the Way.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/15/friedman_of_the_nyt__[briefly]_collides_with_economic__reality__something_is_wrong_here_depression_on_the_way.thtml

Friedman of the NYT Hides his Economic Aces up His Sleeve: Tax and Spent.

http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2011/09/friedman-of-nyt-hides-his-economic-aces.html

[2] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT. The color RED is used in my essays in honor of Walter Duranty, a saint, if there could be one, in the Marxist Archives of Honor.

“He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death." Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Union which only history could judge.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

[3] Krugman Searches for His Own Truth in an Irish Mirror. He Reflects upon the Mirror and Finds Himself as Originator of the Eternal Solution. Tax and Spend.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/09/krugman_searches_for_his_own_truth_in_an_irish_mirror_he_reflects_upon_the_mirror_and_finds_himself_as_originator_of_the_eternal_solution_tax_and_spend.thtml

1938 in 2010 By Paul Krugman [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.] Published: September 5, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

Krugman Offers Us Canned Circular Revisionism: We Can Repeat the War Time Successes of FDR.

http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/09/krugman-offers-us-canned-circular.html

The Tax-Cut Zombies By PAUL KRUGMAN Op-Ed Columnist Published: December 23, 2005. http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23krugman.html?hp

Krugman Explains EcoNazism in the Warmest Terms. Tax Tax Tax

http://ryckzrantz.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/01/krugman_explains_econazism_in_the_warmest_terms_tax_tax_tax.thtml

Krugman Receives the Ultimate Insult: The Swede's Bozo Prize for Leftist Stooges.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/14/krugman_receives_the_ultimate_insult_the_swedes_bozo_prize_for_leftist_stooges.thtml

Averting the Worst in Liberalism as Contrasted by Paul Krugman. Tax and Spend our way to Prosperity.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2009/08/11/averting_the_worst_in_liberalism_as_contrasted_by_paul_krugman_tax_and_spend_our_way_to_prosperity.thtml

How big is $9 trillion? By Paul Krugman The Conscience of a Liberal, August 23, 2009, 5:54 PM http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/how-big-is-9-trillion/

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Tax Mongering at its Pinnacle: Krugman invokes the Social Contract

Tax Mongering at its Pinnacle: Krugman invokes the Social Contract

Abstract: Paul Krugman sifts through ancient history with a sharp barb so he can compile a propaganda piece worth enough to keep this myopic flock in their soggy stables. For others, this is a sophomoric piece devoid of any substance and a grist-mill approach to political pandering. This is simply a tax-mongering screed devoid of substance and based solely on emotion and hatred.

How to best read my blogs:

[I offer extensive quotes in this blog so that the reader can view the exact language and can be confident that nothing was taken out of context or that nobody was misquoted. The easiest way to take in the salient points is to read the emphatic points in the quotes and then peruse my comments. Comments on my comments are always welcome: ryckki@gmail.com.]

Overview:

We can make some sure bets in many places around the world that certain events will unfold in a predictable manner and the surest bet can be safely wagered on what instant rubbish is currently published in the Walter Duranty Papers[1][2]—aka [the near-bankrupt] New York Times. After reading some 100 or more of Paul Krugman’s political propaganda pieces, I would give 10:1 odds that I could predict several words in a future piece of less than four months, and maybe get 50:1 odds in my favor at guessing the content of any sentence in the op-eds they call opinions that contains five specific words of my choosing including or excluding proper nouns.

While compiling a rubbish heap of far leftist propaganda to squeeze into the limited brain cases of their victims[3], it is frequently good practice to invoke some eternal law of social justice or the equivalent to force the reader to believe that what springs forth after this citation must be pure truth and follows the tenets of this founding notion to the letter. There is much to be said about the political efficacy of a worthy or heart-stirring slogan. It must encompass all the necessary elements to fix up the present, future and past and roll then into one tight and juicy egg role for all to enjoy. Karl Marx had a grand opportunity to meld the romantic elements of J. J. Rousseau[4][5] with some vigilantly selected tidbits of history, glossed over, necessarily, and politically greased by forcing a strict theory upon the helpless little peasants of Russia, and thus by manufacturing a grand plan to eliminate not only inequities in their production of goods and services but [presumably in jest] government altogether. You can have a nice administration that way if you merely use lies and firing squads to glue together some of the more flaccid elements of a given society erected upon your particular political prejudices.[6] Krugman has amassed quite a legacy of pushing such points beyond their scope or feasibility.[7][8][9][10] Rousseau was a dirt bag and pervert and a skilled parasite, but he is none-the-less a useful idiot in the hands of skilled propagandists from the left. It doesn’t matter too much what he said—they can twist it around a bit and make it look egalitarian. Name-dropping like this [but J.J. R. is not mentioned in this article …needs a citation!] is adroitly employed so the reader can remember his dialectic and smile and this adds credence and elegance to the nonsense that follows.

Lies are an intrinsic attribute of ‘intellectuals’ as we read in Paul Johnson’s famous book Intellectuals.[11] Here, J. J. Rousseau’s convenient disposal of his children [from his half-wit housekeeper] in some grubby foundling hospital in Paris where the survival rate was near zero is one of the more interesting facts of his life. Perhaps we should get some hints on population control, but that essay is reserved for another time.

With this introduction in mind, let us peek at the next ditto from the Grunt and Grab Press:

The pitch:

“This week President Obama said the obvious: that wealthy Americans, many of whom pay remarkably little in taxes, should bear part of the cost of reducing the long-run budget deficit. And Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan responded with shrieks of “class warfare.” -- The Social Contract By PAUL KRUGMAN OP-ED COLUMNIST Published: September 22, 2011. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references quotes in this essay unless otherwise indicated.]

The first essential point here is to mock the opposition for even mentioning the liberal’s best social weapon: class warfare. Then comes the terror of too much spending by the Democrats in their accusations that Republicans refuse to service the long-term budget deficit. Of course, we can find no sane Democrat who would advise reducing spending, except on the hated military, on any program. They are all sacred. And, most importantly, he attacks the person with much power in the other aisle’s ranks, the Appropriations Committee chairman. Well, so much for getting the preliminaries out of the way. We now need to look for substance in what follows.

“Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million.

So do the wealthy look to you like the victims of class warfare?”-- The Social Contract

The drone over income is mind numbing here. Here, we use probably authentic numbers at the far extreme to generalize. This is equivalent to the liberals constantly inserting “ALL” in any accusation against descent people. It is all or nothing, thus, good or bad If you do not like somebody on the left [I have an extensive list] then you hate ALL poor people and ALL those who are trying to do good by redistributing the wealth for their personal power aggrandizements.

Okay, the basics are out of the way as this resembles a Sumo match where the opponents spend a half hour throwing sand down in disgust at each other in the wrestling ring.

More:

“To be fair, there is argument about the extent to which government policy was responsible for the spectacular disparity in income growth. What we know for sure, however, is that policy has consistently tilted to the advantage of the wealthy as opposed to the middle class.”-- The Social Contract

Tautological slogans strung into a little ditty. It is important to pretend to be ‘fair’ and to concede a few concessions in any proper propaganda piece so you can assume the Purple Robes of Objectivity. This is crap, or course, but the simple need for this prodding is obligatory to coax the readers to the conclusion that this essay is ‘fair’ and directed toward only the guilty on the opposition party.

“The budget office’s numbers show that the federal tax burden has fallen for all income classes, which itself runs counter to the rhetoric you hear from the usual suspects. But that burden has fallen much more, as a percentage of income, for the wealthy. Partly this reflects big cuts in top income tax rates, but, beyond that, there has been a major shift of taxation away from wealth and toward work: tax rates on corporate profits, capital gains and dividends have all fallen, while the payroll tax — the main tax paid by most workers — has gone up.”-- The Social Contract

This reproach is probably correct in its details [by somebody’s standards] and nobody contests that the rich are doing better than the poor in this country. But, the obvious is stated in Marxian terms: The ‘rich’ have the loot so let’s go grab some of that. Better, lets grab it ALL as we saw in the USSR.

Missing from this screed is the salient fact that ALL [I used that too!] of the tax revenue taken in by the government in a given year derives from salaries from employees of business, or corporate taxes or fees and the salaries of government employees are derived from either tax revenues or deficit spending.

But, a novel new tenet is thrown in to showcase a fallen comrade:

“Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer who is now running for the United States Senate in Massachusetts, recently made some eloquent remarks to this effect that are, rightly, getting a lot of attention. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody,” she declared, pointing out that the rich can only get rich thanks to the “social contract” that provides a decent, functioning society in which they can prosper.”-- The Social Contract

It is proper to invoke a maxim without reference or explanation in closing a screed. The “social contract” can imply dozens or thousands of different things, but this comment tends to suggest that the rich would not be rich if it were not for the helpful government. Thus, the government needs some of that loot back to spend on social programs and whatnot. See what Elizabeth says:[12]

“Republicans claim to be deeply worried by budget deficits. Indeed, Mr. Ryan has called the deficit an “existential threat” to America. Yet they are insisting that the wealthy — who presumably have as much of a stake as everyone else in the nation’s future — should not be called upon to play any role in warding off that existential threat. Republicans claim to be deeply worried by budget deficits. Indeed, Mr. Ryan has called the deficit an “existential threat” to America. Yet they are insisting that the wealthy — who presumably have as much of a stake as everyone else in the nation’s future — should not be called upon to play any role in warding off that existential threat.”-- The Social Contract

The conclusion is restated in the closing comment as expected. Notice that this is an echo of the opening statement over class warfare, a favorite slogan of the left from Rousseau to Lenin to Obama. It don’t get more circular than this.

“Well, that amounts to a demand that a small number of very lucky people be exempted from the social contract that applies to everyone else. And that, in case you’re wondering, is what real class warfare looks like.”-- The Social Contract

There is no sense attempting to refute the agonizing reality that the ONLY thing the left has to offer to us is higher taxes and a crushing debt to be born mostly by our offspring.

And, that is, clearly, all they have to offer.

rycK [a 5th generation Californian in exile]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com



[2] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT. The color RED is used in my essays in honor of Walter Duranty, a saint, if there could be one, in the Marxist Archives of Honor.

“He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death." Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Union which only history could judge.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

[3] Millions have demonstrated thieir marginal intelligence, lack of analysis and the penchant for believing anything for a crust of bread or a good few jolts at the local pub.

[5] Social contract theory played an important historical role in the emergence of the idea that political authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most social contract theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any political order, usually termed the “state of nature”. In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

This phony mantra is bait to suggest that those in political power will automatically compensate or adjust the loses of the individual for the greater good. We have numerous examples of how this falls apart when in the hands of the left: North Korea, Cuba, USSR, Hungary, East Germany, Venezuela, Uganda, etc. It should be crystal clear that we cannot trust these progressive or near-Marxist parasites. They are the big spenders that have brought the West to bankruptcy and soon debt default.

[6] Edited briefly from Financial Armageddon in California. The State is Going Bankrupt and Civil Unrest Boils Over. http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/08/financial-armageddon-in-california.html

[12] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-comments-stir-class-warfare-debate/2011/09/23/gIQAWVY0qK_video.html

Elizabeth Warren is what many on the left want Obama to be

Posted on by Doug Gibson

“In my opinion, Warren is the politician that many on the left were hoping President Obama would be. With her rhetoric, she is a Paul Krugman-type Democrat, one who satisfies the need of many partisans to cast the opposing side — Republicans – as “villains.” Her campaign against Republican incumbent Sen. Scott Brown will be fascinating to watch. Expect it to garner the most attention nationally, except for the presidential race.”

http://blogs.standard.net/the-political-surf/2011/09/22/elizabeth-warren-is-what-many-on-the-left-want-obama-to-be/

Obama dumped her:

“On September 17, 2010, she was named a special adviser by President Obama to oversee the development of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The position included the responsibility of recommending a director for this new entity. She was not chosen for the post, with Obama instead nominating Richard Cordray, subject to Congressional approval.”-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Personal_life

A Methodist:

“ Elizabeth Warren, a Methodist Sunday school teacher, professor of law at Harvard Law School, congressional overseer for the TARP program, and the best-known advocate for the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (opposed unanimously by Senate Republican” --http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2010/03/methodists-elizabeth-warren-financial.html