Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren, Hypocrite, Supports Ex-Im Bank

The woman best known for demonizing big businesses nevertheless wants to maintain an outlandishly generous subsidy package for them.


Elizabeth Warren
Tim Pierce / Flickr

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren—a leading progressive populist, possible Democratic presidential candidate, self-proclaimed champion of the poor, and enemy of greedy corporations (not really, as you will see)—supports the Export-Import Bank.

That's right: The woman best known for demonizing big businesses nevertheless wants to maintain an outlandishly generous subsidy package for them.

Warren's support for Ex-Im was revealed Friday after the Heritage Foundation reached out to her regarding a possible partnership on the issue. Libertarians and Tea Party conservatives are noted opponents of the subsidy, which they see as crony capitalism that helps politically-connected businesses cheat the free market. Liberty-inclined Republicans are working with the left on a host of issues, including NSA spying and marijuana legalization—why not make common cause with Warren on corporatism as well?

Looks like the joke is on Heritage. From Bloomberg:

"Senator Warren believes that the Export-Import Bank helps create American jobs and spur economic growth, but recognizes that there is room for improvement in the bank's operations," Warren spokesman Lacey Rose tells us in an e-mail. "She looks forward to reviewing re-authorization legislation if and when it is introduced."

The irony of Warren rejecting an offer from the right to fight Ex-Im together was not lost on The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney:

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren loves to shoot barbs at Wall Street. She also enjoys forcing taxpayers to absorb Wall Street's risks while the banks pocket the profits.

… At Ex-Im's annual conference, one Wall Streeter described Ex-Im's loan guarantees to me as "free money." Is Elizabeth Warren really fine with free money to Wall Street?

Warren was in Detroit on Friday morning speaking at Netroots Nation 2014, where unaffiliated activists waved signs and led chants urging her to run for president. They even filmed this cringe-inducing music video (you can watch it here, but fair warning: you will beg for death before the end). Here are some of the lyrics:

Americans want our next president to be a woman. Hey babe, here's looking at you Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The planet is warming and the power is shifting. We need a leader who won't stand for all the corporate bullshit the lobby's grifting.

People think the system is rigged because it is. And it's time that we stand up. We need a leader who won't stand for all the corporate bullies and political phonies.

If they knew Warren supported Ex-Im, would they admit that she is a political phony who absolutely stands for all the corporate bullies? Yeah, I doubt it.

Thankfully, there are some politicians who do stand up to corporate bullies. Check out Reason TV's interview with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on his opposition to the Ex-Im Bank.

NEXT: Organic Crops Do Not Really Offer More Health Benefits

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nothing says FULL RETARD more than the fact that many Democrats think Warren is worth any attention at all. She’s not only an empty-headed blowhard, she’s also done quite a bit to show she’s dishonest. Most politicians can at least hide their dishonesty. Not Injun Liz.

    If you’re still voting for this party, you’re not paying attention. Granted that the GOP sucks ass, but it’s not totally and suicidally insane. Well, not all of them, anyway.

    1. I can think of some pretty comparably nutty GOP Senators. You get this kind of silliness from long time one party states.

      1. It’s not the insanity, it’s the embracing of the insanity. She’s widely viewed as a viable candidate for the White House by far too many on the left. That’s absurd.

        I know what kind of looniness to expect from the Republicans, but the Democrats seem to have left the planet, by and large.

        1. Get used to it. This level of derp is quickly becoming mainstream and will only continue to metastasize.

          We. Are. Fucked.

          1. No, I think it can only spread as long as the economy can be propped up sufficiently. I’ve got a feeling that’s starting to end–we can’t keep paying so many people to do nothing forever.

            1. I’d argue the opposite. That is when the state-worship gets cranked up to 11.

              Every modern historical example of total economic armageddon, even when demonstrably proven to be a consequence of state intervention, has been followed by calls for further state intervention, massive redistribution policies, govt jobs programs, etc.

              The worse things get, the worse things get.

              1. Well, then dictatorship it is.

              2. Except for the Great Depression of 1921, which never happened.


                1. #hardingrules

                2. You mean the Great Depression, caused by utter government incompetence?

              3. That is not true. Economic crises-ones that impact governments-in Canada and Asia forced those governments to cut spending. If what you were saying were remotely true Reagan would never have happened.

                1. I think it depends on how crisis-y the crisis gets. I’m actually not sure how bad it will be. I suppose there’s a small chance the GOP-controlled Congress will impose some fiscal discipline on the government, but I’m somewhere north of highly dubious on that one.

                  1. It depends on the nature of the crisis:

                    1) how much it is a crisis for the people and how the people respond to that.

                    2) how much it is a crisis for the government and its ability to throw money at stuff.

                    In Canada, we had a mid-90s crisis that was basically a crisis that was first and foremost a crisis of the government running out of money. That was bad for the people, but primarily bad for the government. We got HUGE spending cuts and entitlement reform that would be unthinkable in America today.

                    People will counter with the 2009 Great Recession and say that it lead to bigger government, but they are wrong. The Aughts were The Decade of Expansive Government, and the 2009 crisis just sort of caused it to ‘climax’. At the state-level, taxes are going lower and regulations have been cut. Even some spending was cut or at least moderated. Ex Walker’s Act 10

                    1. Cyto…I agree, sort of. Paul Martin saved Canada’s butt. However, if he hadn’t been there doing what he did, would Chretien have? Mulroney didn’t? Chretien began running deficits as soon as Paul Martin quit, I seem to recall.

                      Someone has to rally the people towards this. Reagan did it. But, I don’t see anyone even remotely being able to coalesce America into fiscal reality of the current crop. Especially not with pretty much every mainstream news source against it.

                    2. Chretien began running deficits as soon as Paul Martin quit, I seem to recall.

                      UWOTM8? Martin never quit. We had a tight leash on spending right up until Martin became PM, and then it got worse with Harper. Then we got deficits with Harper.

                      I don’t see anyone even remotely being able to coalesce America into fiscal reality of the current crop.

                      You should get your glasses checked. They aren’t letting Rand Paul’s image past them.

              4. So the last person left alive will have gotten that way by eating the next-to-last person alive?

        2. I can see what you mean. I have said before that the Democrat Party seems to be some strange, alien thing to me. Even where I agree with them on some point, they ‘kick it up a notch’ by demanding some liberty offensive aspect. So, pro-choice? Sure. But then they say ‘hey, how about government funded abortions for the poor’ or ‘mandate contraceptive coverage.’ LGBT rights. Good. But then they say ENDA. Etc.

          Having said that, Warren, and her support among Democrats nationally, do not strike me as any more worrisome than, say, Santorum’s success with Republicans nationally.

          1. It’s all plenty worrisome. While I feel the Republicans are a little more grounded in reality these days (with some notable exceptions), they still don’t do anything to stop the growth of government when they’re in power. Until they do, we’re in very serious trouble.

          2. I think Warren has a better shot than Santorum ever had, but I think your comparison is pretty apt. Warren will never make it out of the primary as she is a terrible candidate(much like Santorum with far to much baggage.

            1. I think Santorum did benefit from some luck: a plurality of the GOP were looking for a ‘not Mitt’ but their options kept imploding (Cain, Newt, Perry) and he was left standing. Maybe Warren will benefit from a ‘not Hillary’ dynamic in a similar way?

              1. The only people I know that are avid Hillary fans are single issue abortion/wimmynz issue female voters who just desperately want a female POTUS. You give them a chance to go with the woman that is a) more conventionally prog and b) made her career in a way other than riding her hubby’s coattails while other wimminz rode the front of his pants, and they’ll line up behind SacajaWarren quicker than you can say HobbyLobby

              2. That’s kind of what I see happening. Hillary is going to be tough to beat, she has the money and more importantly the national ground game. The real question is who Barack Obama’s political machine gets behind.

                1. I actually think she’s toast, given her many missteps in the last six months and the baggage she’s accumulated over the years (her SoS failures are pretty stark).

                  1. She also voted for the Iraq War-that will be Rand Paul’s silver bullet should he get the no.

    2. If you’re still voting for this party, you’re not paying attention.

      I want to correct you on this one ProL, of course with all due deference and respect.

      There are actually two reasons a person would vote for Fauxcohantus or any other Democrat (you got the first one right):

      1. You’re not paying attention
      2. You’re not paying taxes

      1. 3. It’s easier, socially.

        As a libertarian living in Boulder, it’s incredibly discouraging living in a city of liberals.

        It would be a lot easier to shake your head in agreement to fit in.

        1. Boulder? Good lord that is hell.

          1. Good weather though.

          2. Boulder’s really strange. It’s a pretty big tech town – lot’s of engineers, physicists, etc. But there’s also a lot of hippies and Jezebel types.

            Back during the presidential elections, there were some days when I saw more libertarian/ron paul/end the fed stickers than I saw team red/blue stickers. Those were the good days.

            Every once in a while, I let someone start a political discussion with me, and it’s incredibly tiring because I have to debunk all these media outlets – HuffPo, Jezebel, Stewart/Colbert/Oliver, etc. Just getting people to see that some issues are too complex to explain in a meme or a quick comedy sound bite is tedious.

            Then you have to get them to understand the difference between cooperation and coercion or positive vs. negative rights or the non-aggression principle.

            Libertarianism isn’t something that can be explained quickly.

            1. Come down to reason town sometime…Littleton.

              1. I’ve been thinking about suggesting a H&R outing in Colorado sometime.

                Can’t let all these smug, coastal people have all the fun.

            2. We need a Boulder Reason meetup, I’m another resident of the people’s republic.

        2. Thank FSM for the secret ballot (one wonders if that will become a relic in future years).

          But even still, I rather get a perverse thrill being the contrarian. You think Boulder is bad, try being stuck in the derptopia that is Downtown Los Angeles.

          1. Pssh, that’s small potatoes. I bet you guys don’t even have a professed socialist on your city council like we do up here in Seattle. We even have a protogee of hers running for state senate now.

        3. Seriously, Boulder? You couldn’t find a place in Broomfield, Longmont, or Westminster? At least the liberals in those towns aren’t borderline insane.

      2. Fair point. Consequences are something that happens to other people.

    3. Well I’m not religious or racist so who else can I vote for? You guys make this seem like it’s even a choice.

    4. The Stupid Party’s recent run of extreme stupidity has set the bar so high that the Dems can fly their freak flag without much fear of a backlash.

  2. Princess Progressive Lizzihontas is in favor of a massive government-sponsored slush fund?

    Hang on, let me get out my shocked face.

    1. Exactly! It’s easy to look past the cronyism when a large part of your fan base (Boeing union labor) benefits, you get to steal business from a Wall Street lender and the government gets to spend the (evil) profit on a beneficial program that you get to direct.

  3. So the Ex Im Bank not in heap, big trouble? Many moons before wolf on doorstep. Fauxcahontas summon SEC spirit, protect Ex Im bank. And…howwwwwww.

    1. I see what you did there, chief.

      1. Too many chiefs, not enough indians

    2. This sounds like it would be an amazing re-occurring MadTV or SNL character.

      1. Frankenstein, Tarzan and Tonto agree


  4. “Elizabeth Warren, Hypocrite”…

    No! Really?

    1. I liked the “Champion of the People” hed better. Maybe that was too subtle for the internet?

  5. This is about as surprising as a headline saying MIDEAST PEACE TALKS FAIL

    1. Back in the Neolithic, when I first started reading newspapers, I remember asking dear ol’ Dad about a similar headline and didn’t they make peace in the Mid East last year.
      And Dad was wise enough to say that they’d made peace in the Mid East each year from about the time he was about my age then.

  6. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren?a leading progressive populist, possible Democratic presidential candidatethe soon-to-be 45th President of the United States, self-proclaimed champion of the poor, and enemy of greedy corporations (not really, as you will see)?supports the Export-Import Bank.


    I didn’t want to. But I’m becoming more and more fatalistic with each passing day.

    1. That’s too fatalistic. Wait until 2020.

      1. President Obama? Michelle Obama?

    2. Didn’t Greenwald predict that was going to happen?

      We have a black president now, next will be a woman, next a homosexual, etc. And it will happen purely because of the novelty of it – we have to prove to ourselves that we’re tolerant and atone for past sins.

      1. Even if so, one would think there has to be some woman Democrat governor or senator with a long record of working on these causes that will really be justifiably angry if Warren or Clinton get the nod.

      2. We need intersectionality. The next president will need at least 2 or more grievance points or we are not progressing in the correct direction.

      3. next a homosexual, etc

        Nope (at least not an open one, and I doubt you can have a James Buchanan in the modern media-saturated world). Not in my lifetime. Not entirely as a function of hate or bigotry (although there would be significant portions of the Dem constituency, notably minorities that would not cast a vote for TEH GHEY), more a function of the relatively small numbers of gays and the relative good sense of the gays not to seek power.

        1. Before we get a homosexual we will get the First Woman, First Hispanic and First Asian, but I think we will have the First homosexual in my lifetime. We already have the first openly homosexual senator (Baldwin).

        2. insert obligatory Hillary joke here.

        3. I’d vote for Jesse.

          Even though he is wrong about Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

    3. Oh stop that. You have no more idea if Warren will ever be president than my dog.

      1. The only way to be sure is to ask whether we’re living in an Ayn Rand novel or not. If so, she will take over and go full bore socialism, the living will envy the dead, etc.

        Consider, as evidence, that one of the significant figures in her new FemDem movement is a woman who literally shares a name with a parasite.

  7. Jeezus. A Rand Paul vs. Elizabeth Warren presidential race would be very entertaining…

    Up until Warren captures the presidency by winning California, Illinois, and New York.

    1. Unlikely because of timing issues. Here’s what I predict, winners in CAPS:

      2016: CLINTON / Christie
      2020: CLINTON / Paul
      2024: SOMEBODY / Warren

      1. Fuck, that’s depressing.

      2. I initially read that as Christie winning in 2016 for some reason.

      3. Silly man, if Clinton wins the next two elections, there won’t be an election in 2024. Just roving bands in wastelands that used to be the USA.

        1. At this point, I think I could handle bikers-with-mohawks stage.

  8. Oh, this keeps getting better and better. If they were consistent the progs would drop her like a hot potato over this, but she’s their great white hope so they’re going to compromise their principles yet again. They are going to have a rude awakening when she finally gets the nomination in 2020 or 2024.

    1. If they just want a woman why wouldn’t progressives just vote for Hillary Clinton? She’s got more name recognition, fund raising clout, etc.

      1. Warren will run in 2016 knowing she won’t win, but to move the platform to the left. When Hill-dog gets the nominations the progs will vote for her and she’ll defeat Christie. Warren will sit-out in 2020 so as to ensure Clinton’s re-election in return for Clinton’s support in 2024. She will capture the nomination in 2024 but will lose once the general public gets a good look at her and her record.

        1. I do not see Christie winning the GOP nomination.

          1. Then why does 100% of the media keep referring to Christie as a GOP frontrunner?

        2. Tonio, also, I just looked this up and Warren is 65. She will be 75 in 2024.

      2. Hil-Dog is considered pro Wall Street.

        1. Don’t worry, the MSM will get that changed by summer 2016.

    2. Consistent? They’re being incredibly consistent. They’ve been pointed towards Warren as their great white (?) hope (HEY YA HEY YA) and they’ll follow their marching orders, by Jove. All she has to do is mouth certain correct words and they’ll have no problem with this.

      Remember, their consistency is that only words matter; actions mean nothing.

    3. Warren is the Emo-Prog candidate (think Kucinich).

      The centrists don’t support her.

      1. The centrists don’t support her.

        No worries, we all know if she gets the nomination you will support her.

        1. You forgot to say “wholeheartedly”.

    1. The abject lickspittle hero worship of TEAM BLUE for its candidates continues to amaze and disgust me. TEAM RED does it too, but not like TEAM BLUE. They truly think this person is going to…save them? Save the world?

      1. You don’t remember Reagan no doubt. He is Republican Jesus.

        1. I remember women fainting in the presence of Barack Obama in 2007.

        2. I can’t remember any Republican like that since, or before in living memory, so it seems more like the exception that proves the rule.

    2. This sounds very similar to the nauseating twee bullshit from that Oregon insurance exchange ad a while back. The progs certainly have a lock on the crunchy granola hipster fickwit demographic.

    3. We have some fucked up caucus thing for presidential nominations in Washington state.

      Anyway if we had primaries i would vote for her in them.

      She is anti-war compared to Hilary who plans on starting world war 3 in her first 100 days.

  9. I am for a compromise. Shut off all funding to the Ex-Im bank and pocket their profits (in the Treasury) like in past years until they run out of capital or if they survive – keep pulling in the dough (about $1 billion in 2012/13)

    1. Palin’s Buttplug|7.18.14 @ 4:28PM|#
      “I am for a compromise.”

      Not me. 8%, turd.

    2. If I were a libertarian in an elected office, I would be for compromise simply because a small step in the right direction is better than nothing.

      As a citizen and constituent, I’ll argue for all or nothing because I want to encourage a more dynamic shift in policy and I have none of the downside and blowback that an uncompromising elected official would.

  10. Meh. The Ex-Im bank is corporate welfare-y but not a clear-cut target for liberals (it was FDR’s baby after all).

    I smell fear. And you’re right to be afraid. Warren is the one Democrat who manages to talk about liberal principles in a way that makes sense to the peasants. I’m just mad there aren’t more like her.

    1. in a way that makes sense to the peasants

      Careful, your true colors are showing.

      1. I’ve never hidden my disdain for most Americans.

          1. Well we’re a very stupid and obese people. I have to be a liberal–I wouldn’t be able to handle the disgust otherwise. This way I get to consider you all victims instead of moral transgressors like libertarians and conservatives do.

            1. Screepic please. Tony just outed himself as a sock puppet. Again. You were doing well but that was just way too obvious.

            2. You’re not “liberal”, you are illiberal. So are most leftists who call themselves “liberal”.

              open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

              Your “traditional values” are the statist, socialist values of the old progressives that have failed for decades. You refuse to acknowledge that failure and cling religiously to progressivism despite the facts. You are a conservative attempting to conserve the democrat status quo.

    2. You misspelled principles.

    3. it’s missing an A.

  11. What’s hypocritical about a prog supporting government intervention in the economy? That’s what’s crucial, not the actual results.

  12. Like Hillary, Warren is another one who’s gotten rich off the public teat. The princely salaries that she and her husband have pulled down as Ivy League law professors are purely a result of the tuition bubble funded by Uncle Sam.

    Why do so many people consider wealth earned in business to be nefarious, but wealth made from taxpayers to be perfectly fine? It should be exactly the opposite.

  13. The only thing worse than the Millenial pollacolypse is the endless pulled-out-of-the ass predictions of who runs and who wins come 2020 or even 2016. If you haven’t noticed, we’re on a collision course with a fiscal Armageddon that will change American politics rather drastically. The government will have no choice but to shrink. It has in every other first-world country with a fiscal crises.

  14. Did anyone read her 11 Progressive Commandments? Classic case study in “things that sound good until you think about them.”

    We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.

    We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.

    We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.

    We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.

    We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.

    We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.

    We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.

    We believe?I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014?we believe in equal pay for equal work.

    We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.

    We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.

    And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!

    1. Yeah on close reflection Wall Street needs to be more free to take risks, and science is dumb.

      1. Everyone needs to be more free to take more risks, and scientists can be really dumb. I am the only one you can trust!

      2. Not sure even your proggie friends want you defending them after that shit you spat upthread.

        1. What are only libertarians allowed to be misanthropes?

      3. Her statements about believing in science, protecting the Earfpth, getting tough on Wall Street are so vague as to say nothing at all.

        Sounds good, but then you think about it.

        Pay closer attention please.

      4. Science means you have a responsibility to protect the earth? It’s not even that it’s wrong, it’s just gibberish.

    2. The best part about that stupid list is that it doesn’t even have an intellectual basis behind it–“We believe,” followed by some vague passive-aggressive proglydyte gobbledy-gook meant to tickle MUH FEELZ.

  15. At least Tony’s true colors are coming out. One of the attributes of progressives like Tony and Elizabeth Warren is that they believe that they know what’s best for people. They hide their arrogance and disdain for average people by using terms such as equality and fairness but in reality all they want to do is use the monopolistic violence and coercion of the government to force people to live how they see fit.

  16. I don’t know which of you first coined the nickname Fauxcahontas, but that’s a good one.

  17. The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is a government agency. Citigroup is not.
    There IS a difference.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.