Image 01 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren backtracks on story of brother living on just $13,200

Elizabeth Warren backtracks on story of brother living on just $13,200

but insists “I told the truth”

Things are never simple with Elizabeth Warren.

Warren made headlines the other day when she claimed her brother lived on his social security of only $13,200 in order to score a political point.  Considering Warren’s fabulous wealth, the obvious question was why she wasn’t helping him.

Warren insists that she told the truth about her brother living on S13,200, even though she now admits that’s not true.  So confusing.

Via Fox Boston (emphasis added):

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren is drawing criticism for an e-mail she sent to  supporters Wednesday, claiming her brother, David, lives on just over $13,000  dollars a year in social security benefits. Warren  herself is worth millions.

In the e-mail, Sen. Warren says she was “shocked to hear” about President  Barack Obama’s plan to cut social security benefits through what’s called a “cost of living adjustment,” or CPI.

“Today my brother lives on his social security. That’s about $1,100 a month,  $13,200 a year,” the Mass. senior senator wrote.

Just a few months ago, Sen. Warren bought a Washington, D.C. condo for nearly  $750,000, in addition to her home in Cambridge, valued at $1.7 million.

When FOX 25 political reporter Sharman Sacchetti asked the senator if it was  true her brother doesn’t live on much, she responded “yes.”

Sacchetti also asked why she doesn’t help him.

I do help him. This is a question about how much,” Sen. Warren responded.  “He was worked for 40 years and paid into this system and that’s all the money  he has to live on. And there are literally millions of people around the country  for whom that is the case.”

When pressed if he really is living on that money alone, since Warren admits helping  im, she said, “Let’s be clear about this. Not everyone has a sister who can  help. This is about people who work all their lives  and all they’ve got at  the end is their social security.”   Warren says she does not regret  the wording of the e-mail.

“Not at all. I told the truth,” says the senator.

Hey, while you’re at it,  how about some money for the interns, too?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Never seen in the same room at the same time,

the Truth and a Democrat.

if her life depended on telling the truth we would be rid of her before my comment even posts here.

In the words of that famous Indian dude Inigo Montoya “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” The truth is inconceivable where Elizabeth Warren is concerned.

So now this woman has humiliated her own brother and violated his privacy in national news in order to use a “personal story” to make a political point.

I wonder how much she’s actually giving him.

“Not at all. I told the truth,” says the senator.

Well, that would be TWO things…



The word “truth” has a different meaning for politicians.

    Paul in reply to Rosalie. | April 13, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    Well, it DOES depend on what the meaning of “is” is, doesn’t it? And after all, what difference, at this point, does it make anyway?

nordic_prince | April 12, 2013 at 7:23 pm

“Fake but accurate,” I suppose. For Dumbocrats, it’s not a question of being true, it’s a question of whether or not it could be true ~

Elizabeth Warren telling the truth is akin to the tooth fairy leaving a C-note for every pulled tooth in America.

Now I know that the latter ain’t true and have high suspicions on the former.

This has got to be the laugh of the day…

“Not everyone has a sister who can help.”

But if the people who COULD help their family, friends and fellow congregation members would do so, how much of a government “safety net” would we really need?

    SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to RKae. | April 12, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    Most people don’t consider social security a safety net, it is their only retirement fund. I heard today that half of all workers in the country have no money in their 401(k)s. Unless these people are all either rich or have IRAs instead (doubtful,) they must be relying on SS for retirement. To these people SS is not a safety net nor welfare, they consider it an entitlement after working 20, 30, 40 years. Problem is, just about everyone will get out more than they contributed, making it welfare. Same goes for Medicare. Just about everyone gets more out than they put in.

    fulldroolcup in reply to RKae. | April 12, 2013 at 11:26 pm

    But almost anyone who has earned enough over the years to receive $13,200 a year in S/S is smart enough to understand that it alone would never be enough to retire on.

    401(k)’s have been out there,IRA’s, Roth’s have all been out there, for years.

    So unless her brother has spent half his life sleeping it off on his living room couch, he would HAVE TO know that S/S isn’t enough to retire on.

    And so, I ask: why the EFF is it up to more prudent people to pay for her layabout brother?

    Doesn’t charity “begin at home”???

Sounds like the brother wasn’t smarmy enough to pull the fake race card like his big sister!

Given Liawatha’s performances, I think that she would have been living hand to mouth as well if she hadn’t faked being a “native american” when it was advantageous to do so.

As I have said elsewhere, her great-great-great grandfather being spat upon by real Native Americans during the Trail of Tears is not sufficient evidence for DNA transfer required for her false claims.

So, she’s helping him and yet he “was worked” for (i.e. he didn’t work voluntarily?, someone forced him to work?) 40 years and paid into the system, and did nothing to save for retirement? What a load of baloney.

Seems to me this family has a lot of issues about work and how to save for retirement, like NORMAL WORKING PEOPLE DO!

Senator Fauxcahontas is such a sham it makes me sick. Can I claim disability for that? hmmmm…..

How is it that this vile troll of a woman managed to not only gain a seat in the U.S. Senate, but at the same time seems to be positively worshipped by her supporters?

I just don’t get it. Where’s the beef?

To play on the old joke: “How can you tell if Elizabeth Warren is lying? Her lips are moving.”

TrooperJohnSmith | April 13, 2013 at 12:50 am

If she was being true to her Indian ancestry, she’d take him into her tipi and sew his buckskins for him. Her husband would become his brother, and all their possessions would become his, too.

But then we all know there are two elemental truths here: (1.) Warren is no more a real Indian than she is an intellectual or a leader; (2.) Unlike Indians, who had no concept of lying, Warren is the personification of a lie.

It all depends on what “is” is.

You see, Warren sees a “lie” as an attempt to deceive and mislead, for instance relating facts damaging to the leftist agenda.

Her own intent, of course, was to enlighten, not mislead, and if the lower classes needed it put into simpler terms they could understand in the proper way, she should be commended for editing the truth so as not to overtax their simple little brains.

“Let’s be clear about this. Not everyone has a sister who can help. This is about people who work all their lives and all they’ve got at the end is their social security.”

Unanswered: does Warren help her brother financially?

Lucky guy? Not everybody has a sister who pretends Indianhood and lies to receive favor over others.

This woman is one of the sickest people I can remember in public life: she’s a true sociopath.

Where Hillary Clinton is just plain dumb, Warren is plain evil. This is not hyperbole. This woman is as dangerous as Barack Obama, as sinister as Valerie Jarrett — though not as physically disgusting as Michelle Obama (gotta give Warren that).

The time has come to stop pussyfooting around with these people and treat them as the danger to our freedom and way of life that they are.

Hope he and she are listing that income/gift with the IRS.

Plus if the brother is receiving any gov’t benefits, he’d better have put that down on his application and/or notified the welfare office of any outside gifts or income.

Not that they would skirt the law or anything. Just a friendly reminder.

It doesn’t seem possible for this woman to say anything at all without it being at least partially untrue.

I’m up late writing and I just popped in to see if anything was posted after my last time here earlier this evening. I had my iTunes on, playing “You Don’t Seem to Miss Me”. Then I saw the same song posted as the video of the day. Awesome.

So the basic scenario is that you work for 40 years, have no savings, live on $1100/month iin SS and you expect the government to tax your children (if any) to give you more. I would rather be dead than support taking money from my kids in that scenario.

One should always use the modifier, “The dreadful” prior to referring to Elizabeth Warren. A fraud who would make PT Barnum proud, we have to endure this pill for another 5 years! Argh! Never underestimate the stupidity of the Mass electorate.

What type of work did her brother do for 40 years that has left him in this state? Did he not have access to a 401K plan? Further, what were his life choices?

I’ve had several conversations with people a bit younger than me (I’m 58) who complain about their financial situation, yet when questioned they live in ways that don’t show concern for this.

Many people work just one job. They buy new cars, houses, STUFF. And wonder 20 years later why they are in a financial pickle.

When I was in my 20’s I was working 2 jobs. I later picked up a 3rd job. My husband worked 2 or 3 jobs as well. Consequently we were able to invest in real estate. Consequently we have been able to send our daughter to a great private school in Chicago, and to pay full ride for her college tuitions (since we have been deemed “too successful” to qualify for tuition assistance). We are now looking at our retirement with few qualms… unless the stock market crashes again.

So I have to wonder, what was this brother of hers doing for 40 years? Did he think it sufficient to work without investing in a 401K? Did he think a single job would be sufficient? Did he buy lots of things instead of saving? I cannot think of many reasons why anyone who was an adult in this time frame could not have amassed some sort of safety net if they tried AT ALL.

Finally, EW’s statements seem to indicate that she thinks the system owes her brother more…. “This is about people who work all their lives and all they’ve got at the end is their social security.” Well, yes, if all you’ve done is the bare minimum; ie pay your SS tax, then yes, all you’ll have at the end is that. It is up to us all to take the steps necessary to provide ourselves with a nest egg.

Lie-a-watha is as Lie-a-watha does.

40 years paying into Social Security and he gets $1,000 a month in benefits? Me thinks not.

    jtarter in reply to Paul. | April 13, 2013 at 6:39 pm

    Social Security payments are *roughly* proportional to the recipient’s lifetime earnings. A payout of $1,100 a month is pretty low, which suggests that the brother has been marginally employed for most of his career. Perhaps there’s a good reason, but without adequate explanation this is just another bogus Warren anecdote.

Does she even have a brother?