This, like too many things today, seems to be nothing more than bipartisan crap. I see people as individuals and not party affiliates. EW didn't do anything wrong. She flipped houses for profit which is why it's done. They weren't Habitat for Humanity homes. Insert someone you like in these accusations instead and see if you still feel any of it was wrong, that's the real test.

Please people. These p9oliticians have done enough actually corrupt stuff to come after them for - this is just whining. "Buying a foreclosed home isn't taking from the poor; the bank has already DONE that, which is why it is labeled a FORECLOSED property." So she's good at flipping houses - so what? Flipping foreclosures is a great business that has the potential to have a high ROI - but it's not easy and only works when done precisely right. But hey, if you're gonna pity those going through foreclosures then just direct them to some readily available foreclosure prevention resources provided online by your local Sheriff's Association just like in Oregon at http://oregonsheriffssales.org

I never realized that Elizabeth has zero charisma until I watched that speech she attempted to deliver.

But she's a Democrat so they can break the law. Rich white people are free to do what ever they want... thats who makes the laws... every politician leaves office a millionaire... geez when will you nitwits learn. You are lemmings....

Ummm...what law did she break?

Don't lay it off on just rich white people...Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton; dodging taxes, and god knows what else. Sleaze isn't restricted to any one color or gender...

OK, first of all, YOUR definition of "getting rich" is far different from mine. Renovations, especially involving plumbing & electrical work, ain't cheap, so I doubt any 'net profit' on the improved homes would qualify as having gotten "rich." And the unimproved homes were basically investments which appreciated as the market came back... did you investigate their condition at time of sale?

Buying a foreclosed home isn't taking from the poor; the bank has already DONE that, which is why it is labeled a FORECLOSED property.

Sounds like Warren gave good advice on flipping; some of her 'investments' took 13 years to pay off. She made some money, but it sure isn't the rosy picture HGTV puts out every day.

This is as bad a case of SPIN as I've seen on the web. Even more bald than some of the Hillary stuff.

There is absolutely nothing lower than gaining profit as the result of another's misery. Truly, none of the dimwits that support this wealthy communist would care if she invaded the homes and then sold them. We are seeing a time in this nation when sleaze bags that claim to be against the heartless wealthy, and are not wealthy enough with their hundred million plus not earned, but paid off by taxes and student fees.

stupid.....She is about as much a communist as you are standing up for freedom and liberty...ADVISE.....turn off foxy

Wapo shot all this down like a Ted Nugent bow shot. Warren made little money and basically helped her relatives out. She only owned four homes herself, none in foreclosure. She made minor amounts of money. Virtually none were flipped. Most were rentals.

Last time I checked, investing your money in houses was pretty common in America.

Nice try, but no cigar. Warren stands tall.

Oh I get it...the practice is squeaky clean if you can only afford four houses of your own. This is jack bull hypocrisy, nice try but no cigar, Lieawatha stands where she's always stood...just out of the spotlight because she is afraid of what it will show.

I've always thought of her as Fauxcahontas

LETS
ASSUME
You are correct and she made money ....with 4 houses....Your complaint is she acted more like a conservative....

No, the complaint is she profited from an activity she later condemned (kinda like the preacher who gets caught in adultery)

the 'fist stone' is coming for the National Review...basically for acting like a conservative...

Sounds legal to me and ethical as well. Now, trump's crony capitalism is another matter, which Vera Coking could describe in detail.

Google is your friend.
http://www.bostonherald.com...

The article implies that Elizabeth Warren did something wrong and states flat out that she made a $85k profit. You can't make an $85k profit if you've put labor and materials into it to fix it up. The article also implies that the elderly widow was a victim. Maybe the house was sold too low, but that certainly isn't the buyer's fault. If the family wanted it sold for a higher amount, they could have pitched in and helped fix it up before selling. Elizabeth Warren and her husband provided capital to buy homes and hire out of work family members in Oklahoma with experience in construction to fix them up and sell them - it's a win-win situation. The seller gets rid of a house that is too much trouble and too expensive to maintain, out of work family members have an opportunity to ply their trade skills, the buyer gets a newly renovated home and the neighborhood property values increase. This is hardly a comparison with Donald Trump's assertion that he wished for a depressed housing market so he could make a killing. Here is a less biased article: https://www.bostonglobe.com...

Bull, she did buy foreclosure homes for her family not to make money. Stop the lies and BS.

When Warren was flipping homes, before 1998, most foreclosures were proper and the banks had legitimate title to the homes. After 1998, with the demise of Glass-Stegall and the creation of MERS, the banks entered into one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on the public. The banks' goal was to securitize mortgages illegally, and pass a lot of bad paper on to the investors.

Today, flipping has practically disappeared because nearly 90% of the foreclosures are illegal and the banks do not have clear titles to the foreclosed properties, which makes them almost impossible to sell to investors who want to flip them. The banks have succeeded in fooling most courts by filing false documents which in no way give the bank any standing to foreclose.

But luckily for the banks, most local judges are totally in the dark about the scam and wind up awarding, illegally, the properties to the banks who then sit on them for years because the titles are clouded. Go into a foreclosure hearing today and you will find out very quickly how stupid judges are and how complicit they are with the criminal banksters. The banks are lobbying for another bailout and a change in the laws that will make all of their illegal procedures "legal" and to free up the millions of homes that are sitting idle so they can pocket another trillion.

This article is an obvious hit piece and is NOT the same thing that Warren is now protesting. The people at National Review have to bone up on the securitization process which was created for one singular purpose, to illegally defraud homeowners and the courts while attempting to give the air of legality and to get at the trillions of dollars tied up in mortgages as debt. Anyone who takes a couple of hours to understand the securitization process will have a jaw-dropping reaction of just how big a scam it is. The banks were able to steal trillions, wreck the economy and then have the taxpayers front them nearly a trillion dollars on top of their obscene profits.

Financial matters are made to appear complicated, which they aren't, in order to escape scrutiny and to reap whirlwind profits and not be tied down by any laws. The banksters make their own laws and our government looks the other way and gives them a wink and a nod while our representatives pocket millions in graft payments.

Smear piece on Warren FAIL

I don't know how you all keep track on what it means to be an American, or a capitalist, or a Republican. You'll support making money on private health insurance like it's the "American way," which is a disgusting and immoral practice IMO, but attack someone for making a real estate investment? Good luck with that blatantly hypocritical and confusing stretch of outrage. But I guess reason doesn't matter when you're attempting to demonize people.

The point is that Warren attacked Trump for wanting to profit off of the same practice like it was something evil to do all the while having a history of this same activity.

Equating flipping houses that were purchased after foreclosure does not equate to the predatory lending practices of banks that Senator Warren rails against. Nice try, National Review, but only the gullible and those not able to critically think will find your accusations credible.

Is it implied that Warren did something wrong or unethical? These were already foreclosed properties. She didn't evict anyone. So she made a profit on them So what?

She judged herself guilty, when she judged Trumps off the same kind of profiting off of the misfortune of others. The whole glass house and stone thing. She is a phony hypocrite.

It's the hypocrisy that should get attention. Trump isn't a banker. 'Flipping' should be encouraged, whether commercial or residential, because nothing hurts real estate like vacancy. If Trump bought up properties on the cheap and then turned them into businesses (that employ people), why is that grounds for an attack on his character?

It's impossible to make any sense out of right wingnut thinking, but here the idea seems to be that they approve of buying a piece of real estate property and selling it for more than the purchase price, except if you are a liberal Democrat named Elizabeth Warren. Also, it is fair and not a deeply racist practice to stereotype Native Americans based on Warren's belief from her childhood that at least one of her ancestors was part Indian, which may or may not be true.
The original story mentions about $204,000 in profit from some five purchases but fails to itemize the improvements sunk into the houses.
None of this has any bearing on how to fairly regulate the housing market, mortgages, banks, capitalist or other enterprises like coops. It's just a whining attack on Senator Elizabeth Warren, gobbled up by the usual drooling goobers, because that's what right wingnuts do, it's how they spend their meaningless lives.

Fauxcahontas lyin'....again

OK I respect her in a way. She has a business background, that's how she learned about real estate. But it's not nearly as good a background as Trump, who has built and developed things. She's more of just a trader, but without the math skill to play in other markets. (For example: Hillary's brilliant trades in cattle futures :)

He relies on his lawyers.
She relies on her brain.
He started off with millions.
She went to night school and is now a Senator.
He's a raving bigot.
She champions policies to benefit EVERYONE.
He uses the system to enrich himself.
She reforms the system to prevent fraud.

... You were saying?

More American Indians should emulate her - move off the reservation, marry well, and make a killing flipping houses, before getting a cushy government job!

'cept she's not an American Indian. But if she can do it, they can too.

Thanks for the correction. But she was born in America, making her native American ;)

Whenever a Leftist makes a damning accusation against someone not of the Left, you can take it to the bank that the activity being condemned is in the background of the condemner.
Projection: It's not just found in movie theatres.

Of course she's a hypocrite. She's a Democrat!

Obama supported every major housing policy that led to the housing crash right down to the community organizer street level e.g., Acorn.

The "post hoc, propter hoc fallacy" always confuses right wingnut degenerates, of course.

Your ad hominem remarks are devoid of actual facts.

Go crawl back inside the occupy tent, Dickie.

So, no substantive rebuttal from you, got it, poltroon.

no substantive rebuttal required for a troll who talks about "right wingnut degenerates"

That's exactly the kind of response right wingnut degenerates generate --- well done!

YAWN. Another libtard who engages in name calling when it can't argue on facts. How typical

You know, "libtard" is going to end up associated in the minds of younger people as something to be emulated, since we support every expansion of rights as far as feasible as fast as possible consistent with due process and fair dealing, and work to protect the planet and all its creatures from the usual right wingnut degenerates whose business model is fraud and toxic pollution of the stream of commerce. Keep up the good work!

you left out "ergo" -- for good reason, you clever little troll you. That "fallacy" does not apply because Obama is causing the "ergo" by supporting the relevant policies.

No, I could have included the "ergo" and it alters nothing, because your absurd fantasy in which Obama is relevant to the housing crash more than the banks and loan industry is gibberish, you stupid troll, you.

Well, Warren was criticizing Trump for his comments about hoping for and cheering on a real estate bubble. About his use of eminent domain to acquire land to build a casino. About being so wealthy and so successful, and yet not paying any taxes.
Meanwhile, Warren apparently bought and sold 5 houses and possibly made around $240,000 in profit, over more than the span of a decade, well before the real estate bubble and crash. And she paid her taxes all along the way.