Elizabeth Warren 2020

[Dbeasy 15573]

What I like best about Warren is that she developed her own views later in life about what were and were not the right political policies to pursue.

Growing up in Oklahoma, Texas, southern states or the Midwest feeds you get a daily dose of the themes of self-reliance and hard work. Nothing wrong with that, but the country has changed in the last many years.

One used to be able to afford college. One could save enough money to lead a decent life. Now, hard work and self-reliance isn’t always giving people a fair shot today. She recognized it and changed her views. It’s awesome. While I was never a Republican I had a similar philosophical evolution towards ensuring fairness as I got older. It used to be that people would get conservative when they age, but I think that’s going to change forever. The next generation of older Americans will recognize the imbalance.

[bad_teammate 13496]

Who doesn't develop their own views? I think Tulsi is the only cultist.

[Dbeasy 15573]

Who doesn't develop their own views? I think Tulsi is the only cultist.

80%+ of politicians stay with their same party throughout their entire life. That’s the point. It takes deeper thinking to re-assess deeply held views that have been drilled into you since birth. Jeez. Dense.

[RayDog 682]

Most people rely entirely on information from other sources rather than performing their own original research. Even filtering through multiple sources and deciding which is best is not truly developing ones own views through original research. So, very few people develop their own views on any one subject.

If someone is spending most of your spare time posting on the Web, they are are likely doing very little original research to formulate their own views. 

[horncyclist 1391]

7 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

What I like best about Warren is that she developed her own views later in life about what were and were not the right political policies to pursue.

Growing up in Oklahoma, Texas, southern states or the Midwest feeds you get a daily dose of the themes of self-reliance and hard work. Nothing wrong with that, but the country has changed in the last many years.

One used to be able to afford college. One could save enough money to lead a decent life. Now, hard work and self-reliance isn’t always giving people a fair shot today. She recognized it and changed her views. It’s awesome. While I was never a Republican I had a similar philosophical evolution towards ensuring fairness as I got older. It used to be that people would get conservative when they age, but I think that’s going to change forever. The next generation of older Americans will recognize the imbalance.

Thank you for this. I had a similar experience growing up. My parents were straight working class, able to advance themselves and our family through hard work and dedication. My Dad had a Union job, with good pay and affordable health care. I attended good but not great public schools. My mother was able to afford going back to college when my brother and I started elementary school to get her degree and become a teacher. Prior to my parents generation, their families were mostly dirt poor going back as far as I can trace--which isn't that far because poor people don't create a lot of records. 

What bothers me every day is that opportunities like my family had, which set myself up to advance even further in society, are more and more being closed off to those at the bottom half of America. Hard work and self-reliance don't mean much when you don't have opportunities to do anything with them. Garry Kasparov had a nice op ed a year or so ago with a line that has really stuck with me: "Talent is universal, but opportunity is not, and talent cannot thrive in a vacuum." I'm optimistic that a Warren administration will renew opportunity like my parents had. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I like the arguments you all are making regarding adapting views towards policy over time. Thought provoking in multiple ways.

I was reading in the funny things the Alt right does thread (or whatever its called) about some people being nabbed for identity theft. Does Warren have a plan for ID theft under one of her larger plans? Or is that too issue specific? It is frustrating to be stressing about have personal and bank info stolen but it also seems difficult to stop based on how our mechanisms for transactions work. I know little about ongoing efforts to improve security.

[TwiceHorn 32073]

23 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

NYT gonna NYT.

The reporting is good.  The headline is click-baity.

 

Yeah it really is. NYT should be ashamed of that headline for an article that contains this paragraph:

But a review by The New York Times, together with interviews with several of Ms. Warren’s former compatriots in the rarefied world of self-described bankruptcy nerds, reveals a complex picture in which many cases defy simple black or white categorization. It also offers a look at a relatively unexamined aspect of her thinking.

[Ted Lange 16407]

I thought Trump slayed these guys?  Weird.

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13496]

11 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

80%+ of politicians stay with their same party throughout their entire life. That’s the point. It takes deeper thinking to re-assess deeply held views that have been drilled into you since birth. Jeez. Dense.

That's a made-up statistic, but I'll go ahead and just engage with your overall point.

First, let's lay out some facts to understand the framework of this supposedly-inspirational conversion:
- Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until her 40s and she switched teams because the Republicans were not properly stewarding capitalist markets.
- The racist and homophobic policies of the Republicans did not motivate her switch.
- The anti-union policies of the Republicans did not motivate her switch.
- She did not participate in social justice movements in any way until she was 69 years old and running for president, needing social-justice oriented voters and racial minorities.
- She did not participate in labor movements in any way until she was 69 years old and running for president, needing labor-oriented voters and unions.
- Both as a sitting US Senator and before (like when she was claiming Native American heritage), she was silent on DAPL and all other Native American issues until the issues were settled (DAPL) or she was running for president.

We can have a charitable or uncharitable interpretation of these facts (mine is mostly charitable, probably to a naive extent), but these are the facts, yes?

I completely understand the desire to go with the "changing your mind shows strength and character" sales job. It is what I mostly choose to believe regarding Warren, as well.

However, arguing that it's an actual strength versus people who have had these convictions for much longer is absurd. It's the prodigal son thinking, "Oh wow, I guess I really AM the best child!"

[bad_teammate 13496]

Seeing the wider injustices of the world at a young age and fighting against them for your entire (extremely long lol) life? LAME

Ignoring the wider injustices of the world for decades and only recognizing and working against them when your presidential campaign starts? REAL SHIT

[Cacti 191]

Warren:

Quote

Facebook's own employees know just how dangerous their policy allowing politicians to lie in political ads will be for our democracy.

So, what is Warren’s plan to cull lies in political ads on Facebook? Who is going to be the arbiter of truth or falsity in political debates? Do Facebook employees get to choose a committee from their own ranks to monitor and censor the ads? Or maybe a private, unbiased, third-party fact checker can be trusted. R’s and D’s would have no problem agreeing on that third party, right?  Better yet, maybe we can rely on some government agency (nonpartisan, of course) to distinguish lies from non lies to inform social media.

Political lies, half-truths, and misleading ads are dangerous (they always have been), but pressuring social media companies to censor political speech is even more dangerous.

[bad_teammate 13496]

2 minutes ago, Cacti said:

Who is going to be the arbiter of truth or falsity in political debates?

Ads != Debates

As for the arbiter, it's obvious... Glenn Kessler.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Dbeasy 15573]

That's a made-up statistic, but I'll go ahead and just engage with your overall point.

First, let's lay out some facts to understand the framework of this supposedly-inspirational conversion:

- Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until her 40s and she switched teams because the Republicans were not properly stewarding capitalist markets.

- The racist and homophobic policies of the Republicans did not motivate her switch.

- The anti-union policies of the Republicans did not motivate her switch.

- She did not participate in social justice movements in any way until she was 69 years old and running for president, needing social-justice oriented voters and racial minorities.

- She did not participate in labor movements in any way until she was 69 years old and running for president, needing labor-oriented voters and unions.

- Both as a sitting US Senator and before (like when she was claiming Native American heritage), she was silent on DAPL and all other Native American issues until the issues were settled (DAPL) or she was running for president.

We can have a charitable or uncharitable interpretation of these facts (mine is mostly charitable, probably to a naive extent), but these are the facts, yes?

I completely understand the desire to go with the "changing your mind shows strength and character" sales job. It is what I mostly choose to believe regarding Warren, as well.

However, arguing that it's an actual strength versus people who have had these convictions for much longer is absurd. It's the prodigal son thinking, "Oh wow, I guess I really AM the best child!"

 

Forget it. .

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Wolf disagrees with idea of sheepdog to protect sheep. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hank Kingsley 21756]

Credit to Warren for sticking to her guns on M4A. 

 

[bad_teammate 13496]

Answering one question, funding, and adding a new question, transition.

"My transition plan will take seriously and address substantively the concerns of unions, individuals with private insurance, hospitals, people who work for private health insurers, and medical professionals who worry about what a new system will mean for them," Warren wrote.

The Sanders bill outlines a four-year transition from the current system to Medicare for All. Warren does not explain in her Friday post what in that piece of the current legislation she believes might require fixing or adjusting. But she has during the campaign expressed concern over the existing framework. Her decision now leaves open the possibility she could eventually propose a slower move.

The problem with Bernie's transition isn't that it's too fast, it's that it's too slow. These slow transitions are just going to let people fall through the cracks and die.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[bad_teammate 13496]

Centrists and garbage libs and elite media classes have been desperately trying to make room for Liz to move away from single-payer and have pushed her to move away from single-payer and she hasn't.

It rules.

[horncyclist 1391]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Credit to Warren for sticking to her guns on M4A. 

 

It's really fucking ambitious but I think could work. She needs to build a movement to get significant majorities in Congress. If the GOP goes down with the SS Trump, it just might be possible.

[bad_teammate 13496]

2 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

She needs to build a movement to get significant majorities in Congress.

So a political revolution type of thing?

[bad_teammate 13496]

This is correct, but it's progress in the right direction so I'm not going to get too mad. We can do it smarter later. We just have to get the benefits of it to the people first.

 

[Bruh Man 3160]

The legacy media will move the goalposts. They weren't acting in good faith when they were berating her about paying for M4A. 

[horncyclist 1391]

41 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So a political revolution type of thing?

Absolutely. I just don't think Bernie is the right person to bring it about. 

[horncyclist 1391]

42 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So a political revolution type of thing?

Absolutely. I just don't think Bernie is the right person to bring it about. 

[Message Board User 12405]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

You’re a naive fool, or hopelessly partisan, if you think that M4A wouldnt raise taxes on the middle class.

It’s almost as if the Dems are going out of their way to try to lose an unloseable election.

20+trillion in new taxes........Lordy Lordy.

[GSU&UT 1799]

6 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

You’re a naive fool, or hopelessly partisan, if you think that M4A wouldnt raise taxes on the middle class.

It’s almost as if the Dems are going out of their way to try to lose an unloseable election.

20+trillion in new taxes........Lordy Lordy.

We are literally paying a tax every month in premiums unless you have the most generous employer ever. These costs would go down for everyone overall and I won't have to worry about my employer fucking me every year with either a completely different plan or raising the premiums (and often deductible).

[BradInATX 9208]

23 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

The legacy media will move the goalposts. They weren't acting in good faith when they were berating her about paying for M4A. 

Eh, I don't see how. The plan is pretty good. I guess the media could go after the FTT, but I think that's probably too complex for people who watch cable news. The only other issue I could potentially see is that her plan to make employers pay $X/person to the government instead of to the private insurers basically turns into a flat tax which of course is regressive. But that's basically how it is today - a person making $200k/year at a company pays the same premiums that the $30k/year person does. So it's status quo.

Her plan also does a much better job of being grounded in the reality of how corporations actually operate than the other M4A plans like Bernie's plan which revolves around complete naivete. Bernie's plan shifts trillions of healthcare burden from corporations to taxpayers, then expects the corporations to pay people more instead of profit-take (lol). In Warren's plan, there's (mostly) no shifting of burden away from corporations, which gives them no opportunity to use the transition as a way to reduce expenses.

My biggest question would be around small business and (more so) sole proprietors who currently don't pay healthcare premiums from their company. Would a 30 year old healthy electrician who has his sole proprietorship in an S-Corp be required to pay healthcare premiums, even if he wasn't doing it prior? I'd hope/assume there are carve outs for very small business like this; but that's probably way too into the weeds for now. That's the type of stuff that gets introduced during the negotiation phase of legislation.

I still prefer a public option to single-payer, but this is the best single-payer funding plan I've seen. It's thoughtful and addresses most of the gaps in other plans. Good job, Liz.

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by BradInATX

[Bruh Man 3160]

13 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Eh, I don't see how. The plan is pretty good. I guess the media could go after the FTT, but I think that's probably too complex for people who watch cable news. The only other issue I could potentially see is that her plan to make employers pay $X/person to the government instead of to the private insurers basically turns into a flat tax which of course is regressive. But that's basically how it is today - a person making $200k/year at a company pays the same premiums that the $30k/year person does. So it's status quo.

Her plan also does a much better job of being grounded in the reality of how corporations actually operate than the other M4A plans like Bernie's plan which revolves around complete naivete. Bernie's plan shifts trillions of healthcare burden from corporations to taxpayers, then expects the corporations to pay people more instead of profit-take (lol). In Warren's plan, there's (mostly) no shifting of burden away from corporations, which gives them no opportunity to use the transition as a way to reduce expenses.

My biggest question would be around small business and (more so) sole proprietors who currently don't pay healthcare premiums from their company. Would a 30 year old healthy electrician who has his sole proprietorship in an S-Corp be required to pay healthcare premiums, even if he wasn't doing it prior? I'd hope/assume there are carve outs for very small business like this; but that's probably way too into the weeds for now. That's the type of stuff that gets introduced during the negotiation phase of legislation.

I still prefer a public option to single-payer, but this is the best single-payer plan I've seen. It's thoughtful and addresses most of the gaps in other plans. Good job, Liz.

Curious, why do you still prefer a PO? Single-payer in Warren's mold would save you more money (assuming you're in the middle class).

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[BradInATX 9208]

24 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Curious, why do you still prefer a PO? Single-payer in Warren's mold would save you more money (assuming you're in the middle class).

A few reasons:

- I'm not necessarily sold on the true cost numbers. They are based on absolute best-case scenario. 

- I prefer to give people choice. Even if you think that the option you don't prefer (keeping your employer healthcare) is stupid, I don't believe it's morally correct to force that upon people. Buttigieg said it pretty well in one of the debates. If you believe the government option is the best, then let people choose, and in short time it will take over. I'm a big believer in scientific method - you bring a theory (government-run healthcare is better and cheaper), you test it vs. a control group (what we have now), and then you have conclusions. It's just not really an intellectually rigorous exercise to take an untested theory and implement it as the only option instantly. Let it prove itself out.

- It will still create downward pressure on wages in some instances. It appears that Warren's plan will make employers pay the "replacing healthcare premiums tax" for every single employee. Back of an envelope math based on her $8.8 trillion number means about $5,000 per employed person. So say you're a young, healthy person in a low-wage job that doesn't pay healthcare, suddenly your company is on the hook for a new $5,000 tax. That's obviously going to impact wages. If I were in my 20s and healthy, I'd rather keep my $5k in wages and not carry healthcare. In my family's case it's a net loss, because we pay about $5k in premiums for our family through her work, and I own my own company. So I'd be paying $5k/year for myself, and she'd net about $3,500 ($5k in saved premiums, minus the taxes on that additional  income). I'm not really worried about $1,500 (though I have zero confidence that a government run plan would be superior to ours, it's a great plan) and it's a small price to pay to insure everyone. Just using it as a real-world example of an instance where a middle class family would lose money.

 

All that said, I'm not vehemently opposed to it when it's a well thought out plan like Warren's. I take serious issue with Bernie's plan because it shifts _trillions_ of burden from corporations to the taxpayer and does absolutely nothing to address the fact that said plan is relying on the generosity of corporations to take that newfound money and distribute it to employees. It has a huge, gaping flaw that they don't even attempt to address. It's fantasy-land nonsense. Warren's plan, while probably a stretch in some areas, is not. It's thoughtful, intellectual, nuanced adult stuff. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Biden campaign coming hard AF with GOP garbage talking points:

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[bad_teammate 13496]

The flat head tax cuts way more into potential pay of low earners than high earners.

The blue line (flat payroll tax) is fine.
An inverted version of the red line (a progressive payroll tax) would be better than the blue line.
The red line (head tax) is kind of dumb, but single-payer is so good that even this dumber version of funding is better than the garbage we have now.

Corporations are going to try and evade any tax, so provisions will need to be built into any funding mechanism to prevent those expected evasions. They can evade Warren's head tax by continuing to do what they already do by releasing their employees to independent contractor status or to small firms (small enough to fall under the 50 threshold Warren plans on). That needs to be accounted for.

There is no free lunch any way you slice it.

Warren's financing plan will be better than what we have now and guarantee comprehensive healthcare for everyone. Which is awesome.

(Also, Bernie has already proposed a 7.5% payroll tax, so as usual Brad is full of shit in his Bernie bashing.)

[Anastasis 23717]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

We can do it smarter later.

LOL.  If anything the american political system has shown us, it is that "smarter...later" is totally our wheelhouse. 

[Todd Gack 448]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The flat head tax cuts way more into potential pay of low earners than high earners.

The blue line (flat payroll tax) is fine.
An inverted version of the red line (a progressive payroll tax) would be better than the blue line.
The red line (head tax) is kind of dumb, but single-payer is so good that even this dumber version of funding is better than the garbage we have now.

Corporations are going to try and evade any tax, so provisions will need to be built into any funding mechanism to prevent those expected evasions. They can evade Warren's head tax by continuing to do what they already do by releasing their employees to independent contractor status or to small firms (small enough to fall under the 50 threshold Warren plans on). That needs to be accounted for.

There is no free lunch any way you slice it.

Warren's financing plan will be better than what we have now and guarantee comprehensive healthcare for everyone. Which is awesome.

(Also, Bernie has already proposed a 7.5% payroll tax, so as usual Brad is full of shit in his Bernie bashing.)

If I had to guess, I'd say this is exactly what would happen.  Like, the day after she becomes the nominee.  Corporate board members would immediately assemble and put together packages to release a certain percentage of employees as contractors with the only alternative being they get laid off completely.  But if she somehow gets her numbers right and indeed passes this thing, it has to be considered next-level type legislative brilliance. 

[GSU&UT 1799]

1 minute ago, Todd Gack said:

If I had to guess, I'd say this is exactly what would happen.  Like, the day after she becomes the nominee.  Corporate board members would immediately assemble and put together packages to release a certain percentage of employees as contractors with the only alternative being they get laid off completely.  But if she somehow gets her numbers right and indeed passes this thing, it has to be considered next-level type legislative brilliance. 

Maybe, that's definitely something I'm seeing now that people are worried about. Maybe a silver-lining would be that American workers finally start to realize how much power they should have in the workplace and call this bluff. It's probably more likely there would be a ton of salary changes.

[Todd Gack 448]

3 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Maybe, that's definitely something I'm seeing now that people are worried about. Maybe a silver-lining would be that American workers finally start to realize how much power they should have in the workplace and call this bluff. It's probably more likely there would be a ton of salary changes.

I'm curious as to what calling the bluff would look like.  More unions?

I agree on salary changes - I've long thought that my field (engineering) has been artificially inflated over the last 10 years or so.  Never thought I would sniff 100k without a senior PM level title, but there are several co-workers w/ my experience level in the ~110-125k range.  So if Liz gets the nom, I'll have to sell my summer house in the Hamptons after all...

[Anastasis 23717]

RIFs for errrbody. 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2651]

Warren and Medicare for all is actually growing on me, but a few questions. 
 

what happens to people who work and invested in the insurance companies?  Do they just lose their job/investment?    While that would suck for them, I hope we don’t waste tax dollars on artificially propping up a soon to be redundant industry.
 

 

i assume doctors and hospitals would end up making less money?  If so what can we do about lowering the cost of getting into the field to counteract this?  The massive amount of time and debt needed to become a doctor is ridiculous. Especially since they pretty much work as slave labor for a few years afterwords.   

[bad_teammate 13496]

6 minutes ago, Xian said:

what happens to people who work and invested in the insurance companies?  Do they just lose their job/investment?    While that would suck for them, I hope we don’t waste tax dollars on artificially propping up a soon to be redundant industry.

Part of what Warren talks about in that CNN article is the need for a transition to account for this. The need for a "just transition" is key in the Green New Deal, as well.

Public investment in the economy is a job creator, so if we need jobs, we need to invest public funds into the economy.

[GSU&UT 1799]

26 minutes ago, Todd Gack said:

I'm curious as to what calling the bluff would look like.  More unions?

I agree on salary changes - I've long thought that my field (engineering) has been artificially inflated over the last 10 years or so.  Never thought I would sniff 100k without a senior PM level title, but there are several co-workers w/ my experience level in the ~110-125k range.  So if Liz gets the nom, I'll have to sell my summer house in the Hamptons after all...

I think whether it's Bernie's tax for everyone or Warren's plan to go through employers, fundamental change in thinking will occur as Boomers retire, get on government healthcare, and the rest of us continue to get fed up with insurance companies that do nothing but try to deny to pay for your care whenever you have anything more complicated than a simple prescription written.

 

Also, completely agree with wages. I'm paid 120k in doing web and backend development because I was primarily the only one working on this project with the company at a consulting shop before they hired me directly (much cheaper). I am totally fine if I have to pay another several thousand in taxes if it means we get universal healthcare (I don't want to ever have to deal with an insurance company for the rest of my life), cheaper or free public college, better public transit, etc.

Edited November 1, 2019 by GSU&UT

[Nice Guy Eddie 13725]

11 minutes ago, Xian said:

i assume doctors and hospitals would end up making less money?  If so what can we do about lowering the cost of getting into the field to counteract this?  The massive amount of time and debt needed to become a doctor is ridiculous. Especially since they pretty much work as slave labor for a few years afterwords.   

Care would most likely drop as well since people with private insurance via employers or the open market, subsidize the care received by Medicare and Medicaid patients.  Doctors and hospitals will have less staff to cover more patients.   I realize there is some hope that doctors/hospitals can lower their admin costs enough to offset lower reimbursements.  However there doesn’t seem to be any proof whether this is true or not.

the real question that people have to decide is whether we want to lower the care, service and costs all downward so that more people will get access.  If we’re all cool with worse healthcare, but everyone gets it, the Medicare for All is the best plan. 

its just a false narrative to claim that because seniors like Medicare that it will also work for everyone.  Medicare owes some of its success because younger people have insurance.  And there’s no disputing that. 

[bad_teammate 13496]

23 minutes ago, Todd Gack said:

I'm curious as to what calling the bluff would look like.  More unions?

Yes.

We need to federally ban at-will employment and dramatically increase unionizing. We need more strikes and more collective bargaining.

 

[bad_teammate 13496]

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Care would most likely drop as well since people with private insurance via employers or the open market, subsidize the care received by Medicare and Medicaid patients.  Doctors and hospitals will have less staff to cover more patients.

Or we could spend the same overall as we do now and use the money wasted on booming profits for insurers and drug makers to hire more medical professionals to actually deliver care.

[David Dennison 19520]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes.

We need to federally ban at-will employment and dramatically increase unionizing. We need more strikes and more collective bargaining.

Agreed.

This country needs a general strike something fierce.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13725]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Or we could spend the same overall as we do now and use the money wasted on booming profits for insurers and drug makers to hire more medical professionals to actually deliver care.

Many health insurance companies are not for profit. I’m sure they have highly compensated employees but they don’t have owners or shareholders.  All “profit” is put back into the company which keep costs lower.

i agree drug companies can be a problem but it’s also a false claim that the US can pay what other countries pay. If that is forced, the next generation of new drugs will never be produced.  I agree that it sucks that the US subsidize the rest (most) of the world when it comes to pharmaceuticals.  Make a law that they can’t charge a US patient more than X percent of the average of the rest of the world. It would lower our drug costs while raising the rest of the worlds cost.