Jump to content

Elizabeth Warren 2020

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13511

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But it's the hardest thing to get done, it's the least likely to survive the politics of implementation, and it's not the best solution in terms of coverage, cost or outcomes.

- "hardest thing to get done"

You have no evidence of this.

- "the least likely to survive the politics of implementation"

Explain what you think you mean specifically.

Liz's plan of breaking it into multiple pieces where the actual single-payer would be voted on during the mid-terms? Yeah, that's poisoned.
Full single-payer put into law immediately? That's much safer in terms of protection against death by a thousand cuts.

- "not the best solution in terms of coverage, cost, or outcomes"

Explain what you think you mean specifically.

37 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Was listening to a podcast where the primary point was that most of those single payer places are not where cutting edge medical advances are occurring.  The US, despite -- or maybe because -- of its broken system is way ahead of other developing nations in terms of medical research and technology. 

How much of that medical innovation is done by private insurance companies?

M4A isn't a fully nationalized health service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

NWBuck
NWBuck

Someday I'll forgive the ignorant mofos who voted for anyone other than her during the primaries.  But that day is not gonna be anytime soon. 

LowPressure
LowPressure
BrickHorn
BrickHorn

The Most Pampered Generation was gifted a cheap education.  Then they voted to dismantle the system that made their own success possible and compiled wealth from lower taxes due in part to reduced gov

Posted Images

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Liz's plan of breaking it into multiple pieces where the actual single-payer would be voted on during the mid-terms? Yeah, that's poisoned.
Full single-payer put into law immediately? That's much safer in terms of protection against death by a thousand cuts.

The flaw with this critique is it implicitly assumes Liz is opposed to full single payer into law immediately for which there isn’t much evidence.   I believe Liz and Bernie both want to accomplish the most good the quickest but Liz doesn’t want to make the 2020 election about “socialized medicine” exclusively because it undermines her overall message of anti-corruption and increasing economic opportunity.  She doesn’t want to be the healthcare candidate in the 2020 election but that doesn’t mean she’s against the idea of Medicare for All.  It just means she thinks there are more pressing issues that need to be tackled before single payer can be effectively implemented. 

If healthcare is your most pressing voting issue and you believe Bernie can realistically accomplish what he’s selling then he should be your candidate.  

I don’t think Liz is better on healthcare than Bernie but I think she’s better at pretty much everything else I’d want out of a president at this moment in history.

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Young man I will hit you with a rolling pin

Options to Fund Medicare-for-All
 

Why did Bernie say he didn’t have to come up with a MFA pay plan if he already has one? 

 

Washington(CNN)Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanderssaid he doesn't need to come up with a detailed plan right now of how much his signature "Medicare for All" health care plan would cost individual Americans.

"You're asking me to come up with an exact detailed plan of how every American -- how much you're going to pay more in taxes, how much I'm going to pay. I don't think I have to do that right now," Sanders told CNBC in an interview published Tuesday.

His comments come after Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she would put out a plan in the coming weeks on how to pay for Medicare for All, which she has endorsed. Warren's announcement came after being repeatedly pressed on how she would pay for the sweeping national health insurance plan without raising taxes on the middle class.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/29/politics/sanders-no-exact-plan-medicare-for-all/index.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13511

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why did Bernie say he didn’t have to come up with a MFA pay plan if he already has one?

Because he might want the flexibility to use one of the payment options he's already outlined. He doesn't run from how to pay for it. In fact, he grabs the third rail of raising taxes to pay for services with one hand and raises his middle finger on the other hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26847

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Yes

Well, unfortunately that discredits you in terms of sex offenders or bad optics.  Of course you can have whatever opinion you want, but you won't be taken seriously. By the way - I mean in real life, not here. This is unimportant. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29225

Posted
Posted

But some see her transition from a prolific force on the donor circuit to a presidential hopeful who has tried to curb others from doing much the same as less than noble.

“Challenge Pete on everything from his age and experience to his record in South Bend,” said Rufus Gifford, former finance director for President Barack Obama’s campaign. “I think that’s totally fair. But this is just disingenuous. It implies a level of corruption and cronyism that is inaccurate and ultimately plays into the hands of Republicans.”

Warren and Sanders have made scorning the big money part of a broader campaign to rid what they say is its corrupting influence in politics.

For Sanders, that’s largely been his practice for decades. For Warren, as the Boston event shows, it’s come more recently. She used more than $10 million from her Senate campaign account, some of it raised at large donor events, to help seed her presidential bid, a fact Buttigieg eagerly pointed out.

Past Warren donors say she was an engaging presence at those events, asking questions of her wealthy patrons and listening intently to what they had to say.

She also made it personal. She bestowed awards on those who were successful at tapping their personal networks to raise money for her. Those who bundled large amounts under $50,000 for her Senate campaign earned a silver pin, while those who brought in more were awarded a gold one engraved with her signature. Her campaign says it’s a practice she discontinued in 2012.

As Warren considered a White House run, she held a series of small meetings at her home to court top Boston-area donors who raised large sums for Hillary Clinton and to gauge their interest in supporting the senator’s potential bid, according to a past contributor who attended one of the meetings. The donor spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Oh noz!  Warren did something bad and then swore it off because she found out how shitty it was!  I forgot holding yourself to a higher standard makes you a hypocrite. She should have never evolved. 

The fundraisers aren’t about the money.  It’s about time, access, and influence these folks buy through candidates.  Pete is spending time with folks who need no help while Warren is talking to voters that have to ration their insulin. 

That’s the point Warren is making with the wine cave.

 

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1391

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here's a good article on Warren's pressure on the Clinton campaign and plans to push a Clinton administration away from the pro-corporate status quo on economic policy. Reading it really gives you a sense of the progressive coalition she's built and how her administration could actually be effective in bringing about real structural change. For the same reasons, it reveals the threat she poses to many who are exploiting the current system. God, I wish Democrats weren't fucking this up.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/19/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-economy-087346

 

 

Edited by horncyclist
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9973

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Here's a good article on Warren's pressure on the Clinton campaign and plans to push a Clinton administration away from the pro-corporate status quo on economic policy. Reading it really gives you a sense of the progressive coalition she's built and how her administration could actually be effective in bringing about real structural change. For the same reasons, it reveals the threat she poses to many who are exploiting the current system. God, I wish Democrats weren't fucking this up.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/19/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-economy-087346

 

 

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9973

Posted
Posted

This is the list of people she insisted that the Clinton Campaign consult with in exchange for Warren not running in 2016:

The list, recompiled by POLITICO based on the accounts of those involved, included a hodgepodge of sometimes obscure liberal academics and economists including MIT’s Simon Johnson, UConn’s James Kwak, Columbia’s Joseph Stiglitz, Vanderbilt’s Ganesh Sitaraman (policy director for Warren’s 2012 campaign), University of Chicago’s Amir Sufi, U.C. Irvine’s Katie Porter and Vermont Law School’s Jennifer Taub. The progressive think-tank typesincluded Demos’ Heather McGhee; public servants who had clashed with the Obama administration included former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila Bair and longtime Senate aide Elise Bean. AFL-CIO policy director Damon Silvers represented unions.

I know Johnson and Kwak's work well. They are well known in economics. So is Stiglitz. (poor authoring again from Politico, FFS). Johnson and Kwak have written well on the subject of post-Keynesian economics. They are incrementalists. They worry about people thinking MMT is an unlimited spigot. It may be, but they think control is needed in case it isn't. Good planning on the first steps in the transition. Good choice by Warren.

And for you debt bugs, Johnson is associated with Pete Peterson's think-tank, so he understands your concerns. Kwak and Johnson are well-respected. 

And who cares if they were critical of Obama's Financial Affairs Team. Obama was dealing with a crisis. He assembled the best team based on what his advisors said at the time. He was new to the Presidency. Mistakes are allowed.

He had Timothy Geitner calling some of the shots. Little Timmy rose to the highest level of his incompetence. I am sure President Obama knows his financial team dropped the ball now and then. And so what if he did. He took the route the country was best prepared for. He should have told the right wingers advising him to take a leak, but Americans were happy.

The Obama advisers  left a lot of folks behind. Warren was a champion of those people. She understood the root of the problem. Obama just had a bunch of banker boomers used to the easy life of making millions. Obama entered that bubble. He didn't forget. He just forgot to trust but verify when the boomers nudged him to install austerity as needed to stop inflation. There was no inflation risk for households. There hasn't been since 2008. There is financial inflation due to a lack of demand from Main Street. 

Warren saw all of this. She saw the problems with Obamas financial team. She spoke about it. She made it a little bit better. If Obama had his way, Warren would have been running that financial team, but the situation did not warrant the risk. 

It is good that Warren was skeptical of Facebook and the giant Black-Rock. Trust by verify.

And Larry Summer and Rubin deserved to be on both the Warren and Clinton's NO list. He was the wrong man for the time. 

Great quote by Elizabeth from the speech she gave after the Clinton loss:

But as many politicians did in November 2016, Warren had to scrap her planned remarks. “That speech was now in the trash,” she later wrote.

The speech she actually delivered echoed what she had told Clinton at that December 2014 meeting.

“If we have learned nothing else from the past two years of electioneering, we should hear the message loud and clear that the American people want Washington to change,” she said.

“It was clear in the Democratic primaries.

It was clear in the Republican primaries.

It was clear in the campaign.

And it was clear on Election Day.”

That's the Elizabeth I admire.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LABEVO

LABEVO 928

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

This is the list of people she insisted that the Clinton Campaign consult with in exchange for Warren not running in 2016:

The list, recompiled by POLITICO based on the accounts of those involved, included a hodgepodge of sometimes obscure liberal academics and economists including MIT’s Simon Johnson, UConn’s James Kwak, Columbia’s Joseph Stiglitz, Vanderbilt’s Ganesh Sitaraman (policy director for Warren’s 2012 campaign), University of Chicago’s Amir Sufi, U.C. Irvine’s Katie Porter and Vermont Law School’s Jennifer Taub. The progressive think-tank typesincluded Demos’ Heather McGhee; public servants who had clashed with the Obama administration included former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila Bair and longtime Senate aide Elise Bean. AFL-CIO policy director Damon Silvers represented unions.

I know Johnson and Kwak's work well. They are well known in economics. So is Stiglitz. (poor authoring again from Politico, FFS). Johnson and Kwak have written well on the subject of post-Keynesian economics. They are incrementalists. They worry about people thinking MMT is an unlimited spigot. It may be, but they think control is needed in case it isn't. Good planning on the first steps in the transition. Good choice by Warren.

And for you debt bugs, Johnson is associated with Pete Peterson's think-tank, so he understands your concerns. Kwak and Johnson are well-respected. 

And who cares if they were critical of Obama's Financial Affairs Team. Obama was dealing with a crisis. He assembled the best team based on what his advisors said at the time. He was new to the Presidency. Mistakes are allowed.

He had Timothy Geitner calling some of the shots. Little Timmy rose to the highest level of his incompetence. I am sure President Obama knows his financial team dropped the ball now and then. And so what if he did. He took the route the country was best prepared for. He should have told the right wingers advising him to take a leak, but Americans were happy.

The Obama advisers  left a lot of folks behind. Warren was a champion of those people. She understood the root of the problem. Obama just had a bunch of banker boomers used to the easy life of making millions. Obama entered that bubble. He didn't forget. He just forgot to trust but verify when the boomers nudged him to install austerity as needed to stop inflation. There was no inflation risk for households. There hasn't been since 2008. There is financial inflation due to a lack of demand from Main Street. 

Warren saw all of this. She saw the problems with Obamas financial team. She spoke about it. She made it a little bit better. If Obama had his way, Warren would have been running that financial team, but the situation did not warrant the risk. 

It is good that Warren was skeptical of Facebook and the giant Black-Rock. Trust by verify.

And Larry Summer and Rubin deserved to be on both the Warren and Clinton's NO list. He was the wrong man for the time. 

Great quote by Elizabeth from the speech she gave after the Clinton loss:

 

 

Aren’t you a Gary Johnson voter anyways?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, BradInATX said:

The second time she applied she was a Native American though. I think they let them pay in Wampum.

 

 

You know, there is actually going to be some oldish diabetes ridden white person in the Midwest who dies because they choose to vote over nonsense like this. Medicare for all would have saved them. But Warren put something she actually believed on a form 40 years ago. Great reason to vote against your own self interest. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29225

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

You know, there is actually going to be some oldish diabetes ridden white person in the Midwest who dies because they choose to vote over nonsense like this. Medicare for all would have saved them. But Warren put something she actually believed on a form 40 years ago. Great reason to vote against your own self interest. 

anyone who votes for trump because of some stupid old indian joke narrative was a lost cause anyway, and they're probably too stupid to function in society to begin with.

fuck em.

 

(and by "em" i mean trump voters, not diabetes sufferers or tellers of stupid old indian jokes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...