Jeff Bezos has $222 billion.

If he paid my wealth tax this year, we could fund insulin in America for everyone who needs it plus free school lunch for every kid in Texas—and have plenty of money left over.

And Bezos would still have $215 billion dollars to spare.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) April 5, 2026

What a brilliant, never-heard-of-before idea, Liz! And while we’re at it, could I have some of your eight million or so? I’d only take maybe two million, leaving you with about six – more than anyone really needs. I’ll put it to good use, and I don’t think you’d really miss it.

Here’s a takedown of Warren’ proposal, with some details.

Some of the responses to Warren’s tweet are pretty good, too, such as:

Just stop, we all know your scam.

Democrats raise taxes.
Money flows to NGOs packed with Democratic operatives.
Those operatives take their cut, write a check to Democratic campaigns
Report back that the problem still exists and needs more funding.

And

Bezos spends $15B, develops a space program, creates new technologies.

California spends $15B to build high speed rail, zero miles delivered.

You’re proposing to move capital from the best capital allocator to the worst, one rife with fraud and overspending.

The post How much money does Jeff Bezos need, anyway? appeared first on The New Neo.

If you watch a clip today, let it be this one of Elizabeth Warren stumbling all over herself as she’s repeatedly pressed on why she lied about Joe Biden’s senility. pic.twitter.com/pyMjQjAaUo

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) April 22, 2025

The post Elizabeth Warren tries to explain/deny the coverup of Biden’s cognitive decline, and utterly fails appeared first on The New Neo.

“Dems Pause January 6 Hearings To Call For Insurrection”:

Democrats have temporarily pushed pause on the January 6th hearings in order to lead an insurrection against the federal government.

“On January 6th, a branch of our federal government was almost overthrown because politicians used dangerous rhetoric that caused—wait, hold on everyone, I just got the update. Roe’s been overturned!” said Representative Adam Schiff. “Okay, well if all the Republicans could please sit tight, there will be a brief recess while our Democratic caucus takes to the streets demanding we overthrow a branch of the federal government.”

After closing down their presentation entitled “How Trump Undermined Institutional Authority”, Democrats raced to join the crowd surrounding the Supreme Court building. “Rigged! Rigged decision!” shouted Senator Elizabeth Warren. “Judges must no longer be allowed to hold power! We will never abide by an illegitimate decision by an illegitimate court. Fight, fight!” she screamed as beleaguered police arrived in riot gear.

Warren didn’t really say that. This is what she actually said, a mendacious and demagogic misstatement of many of the issues decided in Dobbs and likely to result from it, a speech designed to mislead and prey on fears. Warren is a lawyer and former law professor and she knows better. But she thinks Americans are stupid and can’t understand either Roe or Casey or Dobbs.

That is the Democrats’ approach to this, and perhaps it will work with some people. If so, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time.

The post This is one of <i>The Babylon Bee’s</i> best appeared first on The New Neo.

Or three – is Tulsi still hanging on? Hard to tell, but if so, her influence is negligible. It’s Biden vs. Sanders now.

Warren is dropping out but making no endorsement at this point. I’m not surprised at her stalling; it’s a tricky conundrum for her. If she endorses Sanders, whom she seems to detest (or is that fake, too?), she at least goes with her own basic ideology. But if she does that, the Democratic establishment will turn their backs on her. A Biden endorsement will get her a lot more later on.

I think it will be a Biden endorsement for Liz. It makes more sense in terms of her own self-interest. But she won’t do it for a while.

The current thought is that Warren dropping out helps Sanders, however, because her votes will go to him, and that her staying in through Super Tuesday helped Biden, because she siphoned votes away from Sanders.

I agree that that her leaving the race is more likely to help Sanders than Biden, but I learned from the GOP battle in 2016 that those sorts of predictions are very iffy. Every time someone dropped out of that race I thought his or her votes would go to someone other than Trump, but often Trump seemed to either get the lion’s share or a significant amount.

Trump had this to tweet:

Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, who was going nowhere except into Mini Mike’s head, just dropped out of the Democrat Primary…THREE DAYS TOO LATE. She cost Crazy Bernie, at least, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas. Probably cost him the nomination! Came in third in Mass.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 5, 2020

It seems apparent to me that Trump is trying to fan the flames of anger in Bernie’s supporters, so that they are less likely to support the eventual Democratic nominee, who will almost certainly be Biden.

A couple of years ago Warren seemed like a rising force in the Democratic Party, but she was limited by her own grating personality. She’s one of those people who doesn’t grow on you, even if you’re a Democrat. She always reminded me of certain energetic gym teachers I had, full of wearyingly peppy harangues, and looking like if they had a makeover they’d look really pretty, or at least much prettier.

I can say that because I’m a woman. If Chris Matthews said it, he’d be fired.

And just for fun, we have:

The post Warren drops out of the race appeared first on The New Neo.

Let’s get this out of the way: so what if Sanders said a woman can’t win in 2020? Wouldn’t he just be describing a situation in which voters feel a certain way, rather than agreeing with that sentiment?

Ah, but no one (especially no man, especially no white man) is allowed to say anything other than that women are wonderful and can do anything. And of course, Elizabeth Warren – who may not be a Native American but who I’m virtually certain is a woman – is not above playing the woman-wronged card.

I don’t agree with any of these Democrats on most things, but some of them rub me the wrong way more than others. Warren definitely causes my flesh to crawl. (John Kerry was and still is another, and that goes way back to the very beginning of his political career.}

Who will this sort of ruckus hurt more, Warren or Sanders? I don’t know, but I think the behavior of CNN might hurt that station even more, because Sanders supporters aren’t happy with what moderator Abby Phillip did:

Consequently, when the CNN moderators gave Sanders the Trump treatment, the outraged ululations of the Left could be heard from sea to shining sea. Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi tweeted, “This is an unusually vile performance by CNN.” The Nation’s Elie Mystal raged, “Jesus Christ I hate these biased questions from the moderators. ‘How would you keep your plan from bankrupting the country?’ JUST ASK THE KOCH BROTHERS TO MODERATE NEXT TIME!” HuffPost’s Zach Carter griped about CNN’s post-debate panel discussion, “CNN’s crew is just straight bashing Sanders post-debate.” The New Republic’s Libby Watson whined, “CNN is truly a terrible influence on this country.”

CNN, biased? Say it isn’t so, Joe.

And why does CNN prefer that Warren do better than Sanders? I’m not sure. Perhaps they think she is perceived as less leftist. I happen to think they are close to even. Perhaps they think that a woman has the best chance of beating Trump. I don’t see that.

One more thing – the evening after the debate I was with two women who are both Democrats. They were discussing the debate, which they’d both watched. I have no idea whether their viewpoints are typical of the Democratic voter, but both agreed that it was a wonderful debate in which all the candidates sounded good and acquitted themselves fabulously. One of these women is a Sanders supporter and one a Warren supporter, and the subject of the feud didn’t even come up.

My guess is that it means nothing to them, and that they are typical of the non-twitter Democrat voter. All they care about in the 2020 election is beating Trump, and they will vote for any Democrat nominated. To them, it doesn’t really seem to matter who it will be.

[NOTE: One of the grammatical rules I still struggle with at times is when to use “who” and when to use “whom.” I know all the tricks, but I still make errors. Is that last sentence in the post correct? I think so, but I’m still not certain.]

The post The Warren vs. Sanders show appeared first on The New Neo.

But one of the most standout revelations stemmed from a signature Cosmo question: “What’s your skincare routine?”

“Pond’s Moisturizer,” Warren concisely responded. “Every morning, every night. And I never wash my face.”

Then again, she has very good skin for someone her age.

But wouldn’t there be some sort of buildup of Pond’s over time, like the many layers of Troy?

[NOTE: Regarding the title of this post, I was unsure whether it’s more correct to write “people…faces” or “people…face.” But I went with “faces.”]

The post I’ve heard of people who claim to never wash their faces with <i>soap</i> appeared first on The New Neo.

Elizabeth Warren has come up with a plan to pay for her “Medicare For All” proposal, which has a price tag in the tens of trillions of dollars. Part of the plan is a “wealth tax,” which means taxing unrealized capital gains at ordinary income rates. Combined with other elements of her plan, this implies that unrealized capital gains will be taxed at more than 50%. …

I’ll tell you this, though: lawyers are a core constituency of the Democratic Party, and nearly every lawyer in the U.S. (along with many others, of course) tolerates paying 50% marginal tax rates on his or her income only because a chunk of that income is sheltered in 401(k)s. The 401(k) and the house are where the vast majority of high income earners accumulate wealth. Warren’s proposal essentially destroys the ability to build wealth via retirement savings. This may be OK with those who are already rich, like Elizabeth Warren, but it will be anathema to younger people who are trying to become wealthy.

That applies to a lot of people, but let’s stay with lawyers for now, the group I know best. Assessing a “wealth tax” that invades previously tax-free 401(k)s at a 50%+ rate will destroy Warren’s support in what has been, in recent years, a core Democratic Party constituency. “Wall Street,” i.e. the financial industry, has already warned that if Warren is the Democrats’ nominee, it will not support her. That in itself is seismic; no industry has ever supported a politician to the extent that Wall Street supported Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But the loss of support from America’s lawyers might be even more deadly to the Democratic Party.

More here:

Economist Jonathan Gruber famously attributed the passage of Obamacare to “the stupidity of the American voter.” The MIT professor’s assessment of the electorate’s collective intelligence is clearly shared by Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren if she expects us to take her “Medicare for All” funding plan seriously. She wants us to believe that she can expand a program already verging on bankruptcy — Medicare for the elderly will go broke in 2026 according to the most recent Trustees report — to cover every American without raising middle-class taxes…

You are by now anxious to know where the extra $20.5 trillion is going to come from. Warren’s answer to that question may cause your BS detector to go off. Her plan repeatedly claims that this stupendous amount of money includes “not one penny in middle-class tax increases.” There will, of course, be taxes on the Left’s designated villains, including “the financial sector, large corporations and the top 1 percent of individuals.” There will be additional taxes paid by “ultra-millionaires and billionaires,” as well as an additional employer tax the plan styles a “new Employer Medicare Contribution.” It goes without saying, of course, that there will be a substantial cut in what she calls the “military slush fund.”

Part of the $20.5 trillion will allegedly come from “savings.” The savings scheme that will get your attention involves the loss of your employer health insurance. It’s going away whether you like it or not. How will that save money? “As the experts I asked to evaluate my plan noted, private insurers had administrative costs of 12% of premiums collected in 2017, while Medicare kept its administrative costs down to 2.3%.” This is fiction. Medicare’s overhead costs aren’t lower. They are just hidden in the budgets of other agencies such as the IRS, the Social Security Administration, and HHS. The Warren plan also double-counts certain savings, as Charles Blahous of the Manhattan Institute writes:

These proposals are always complex, and evaluating them takes a level of tax and financial knowledge most people lack (I certainly lack it). Warren relies on this, and on the fact that she can easily locate some experts to parrot the pro-Warren line. But some things are clear and reflect what used to be known as “common sense” because it used to be quite common: health care is expensive, there is no free lunch, and there is a finite amount of money you can squeeze from the very wealthy.

[ADDENDUM: I have previously discussed the problem of valuing unrealized gains here.]

The post Elizabeth Warren tries some math on Medicare for All… appeared first on The New Neo.

.@SenWarren zings … men:

“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men. In fact, we’re not here because of men at all.” pic.twitter.com/CE2pjR1Xyk

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) September 18, 2019

The post I guess Elizabeth Warren was conceived through parthenogenisis appeared first on The New Neo.

As commenter “FOAF” writes:

…Warren is scary for reasons beyond herself. She is no more likable than Harris and should have been buried by the fiasco about her heritage. But she is a leftist true believer which is exactly where the Democrat party is now. And even lying about her background doesn’t hurt her with Dems because it also reflects what they are – completely unscrupulous about using identity politics to gain power.

I had originally thought—when Warren declined to run in previous presidential election years—that she would be considered too old to run in 2020. But in this field she’s practically a spring chicken. And, despite her schoolmarmy vibe, she looks very good for a woman her age: trim, not especially wrinkled, and energetic.

But her real appeal is the same as Bernie Sanders’ was in 2016: she and he are the True Believers. At least, I think they are, despite contradictions and the hypocrisies you can point out between their political philosophies and the way they live their lives. They seem sincere—and although the “seem” is all that really matters in an election, I think they are sincere as long as their politics don’t require them to take vows of poverty.

Since the Democrats are now officially leftists, Warren is quite acceptable and even desirable to the party in that sense. She has a certain gravitas that the young ones lack, and unlike the even-older Biden, she doesn’t appear to be poised on the mentally-losing-it border.

Warren also has whatever it was that made some people like Hillary Clinton (yes, some people liked Hillary): a feisty quality that reads as “strong woman.”

FOAF is quite correct that to most Democrats, Warren’s history of using identity politics based on a lie about herself won’t matter. It’s easy to explain away as “But she was merely mistaken; she believed herself to be part-Cherokee.” In the scheme of things, what choice do Democrats have? Warren is one of the most viable candidates—Hillary 2.0 without all the baggage (although Warren has some of her own, it can’t compare in heaviness); Bernie 2.0 without the advanced age and the New York leftist shtick; and creds as a real leftist who can be trusted to do the lefty thing once in office.

What’s not to like?

The post And then there’s Elizabeth Warren… appeared first on The New Neo.