Elizabeth Warren 2020

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

9 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Voter apathy and a terrible Democrat candidate handed Trump the Midwest 

And why do you think voters were apathetic? 

[6th Street 6,354]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

And why do you think voters were apathetic? 

Hillary Clinton sucks 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

2 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Hillary Clinton sucks 

Indeed, and a big part of that was her centrism. 

[tantric superman 4,667]

45 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Assuming this is true, the best strategy is nominate a centrist not a progressive.  You want a progressive when the issues are the deciding factors. When the deciding factor are the people, you want someone and their stance to be as plain as possible.

Certainly sounds intuitive.  But you need to get people excited and passionate, even thought the stance is "plain".  If your stance is plain you still have to get people excited about you.  Beto, in his youth, might have been that kind of candidate.  I think both Pete and Booker could gather some excitement even if they kept their stances plain.  Maybe.  I don't see anyone else.

I pretty much think the only folks who can garner the passion of the Dems in the general are Bernie, Warren, Pete and Booker. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

45 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's incredible that 30 years of centrist Dems leads to Trump, who steals the Midwest with a populist message, and some people still think more centrist Dems is the answer. 

It's not as amazing when you realize that these people are motivated almost entirely by their class interests and almost completely blind to it.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,406]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's incredible that 30 years of centrist Dems leads to Trump, who steals the Midwest with a populist message, and some people still think more centrist Dems is the answer. 

Since ‘93 there have been more centrist democrats in office over any other category. But please continue. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Since ‘93 there have been more centrist democrats in office over any other category. But please continue. 

Yeah, that’s kinda the problem. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[Message Board User 12,389]

1 hour ago, 6th Street said:

Voter apathy and a terrible Democrat candidate handed Trump the Midwest 

Dude don't you know we're getting the Midwest back with a platform of

Open borders 

Medicare for all including illegal immigrants (courtesy of higher taxes)

Gun confiscation

Partial birth abortion

Court packing 

Junking the electoral college

Edited November 1, 2019 by Message Board User

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Yeah okay.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

That is going to happen and it's going to fucking own.

Eat a dick, Republican.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,144]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Assuming this is true, the best strategy is nominate a centrist not a progressive.  You want a progressive when the issues are the deciding factors. When the deciding factor are the people, you want someone and their stance to be as plain as possible.

Why do the Dems always have to be the centrists while the party of treason has free reign to run whatever fascist asshole they want?  Fuck that, Hillary is more to the center than a lot of dem candidates and it meant fuck all. 

[Bruh Man 3,160]

49 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Dude don't you know we're getting the Midwest back with a platform of

Open borders 

Medicare for all including illegal immigrants (courtesy of higher taxes)

Gun confiscation

Partial birth abortion

Court packing 

Junking the electoral college

Whose platform is that? 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Bruh Man

[6th Street 6,354]

1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

Dude don't you know we're getting the Midwest back with a platform of

Open borders 

Medicare for all including illegal immigrants (courtesy of higher taxes)

Gun confiscation

Partial birth abortion

Court packing 

Junking the electoral college

Every time I hear these dolts championing these divisive issues like abortion and free health care for undocumented people I cringe. The only thing they should be focusing on is job creation. Just say you're going to bring manufacturing jobs back and you'll win the Midwest. So easy 

[Message Board User 12,389]

2 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Every time I hear these dolts championing these divisive issues like abortion and free health care for undocumented people I cringe. The only thing they should be focusing on is job creation. Just say you're going to bring manufacturing jobs back and you'll win the Midwest. So easy 

Do you even Green new Deal bro?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[tantric superman 4,667]

Help me with the maths.  With the recent relative dissatisfaction with the Trump tax cuts, and the 2018 House takeover, wouldn't the taste for increasing progressive tax rates and capital gains tax be much easier (and more likely legally permissible) than a wealth tax.

Was listening to a podcast today and the very pro wealth tax advocate was saying 6-7% is the absolute highest you can make the rate without diminishing returns. 

I'd rather (and most people I think would rather) jack the progressive tax rates and capital gains up (a simple, straightforward approach) than go with this kind of mad hatter idea. 

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Courtesy of David Weigel 

Obama 2007

 

Warren last night:

[horncyclist 1,384]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Courtesy of David Weigel 

Obama 2007

 

Warren last night:

That's a great speech for Warren. God we need her. I wish Bernie would see the writing on the wall and support the person most likely to deliver what he wants. Hopefully after the early states. The progressive base plus Warren's populist anticorruption message is a winner.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

9 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Bernie would see the writing on the wall and support the person most likely to deliver what he wants.

I actually think Bernie helps in this race.  If Bernie dropped out, Liz would be painted as the extremist.  Bernie moves the window enough to make Warren more palatable to the electorate.  They’re both fighting for similar things and the movement suffers without both Warren and Sanders in the race, at least right now.  May the best candidate win.    

Edited November 2, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Revolution512 1,480]

Her healthcare proposal is from the land of unicorns. Won’t affect the middle class......right.  How stupid are the people we have running? Generation of complete idiots.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Medicare for all and the green new deal may help her win to primary, but will hurt in the general.

The wealth tax is a win politically. We will see many articles lambasting in the future it that it wont work, already have in fact. These are simply the owners reaction and their attempt to keep the sheep idle. Its garbage.

With respect to medical care, our system is so fucked up that Incremental steps are best. Public option is the way to go, not M4A. Also the green new deal is a pipe dream at this point, unless you enjoy losing elections to complete pieces of shit like trump. 

Edited November 3, 2019 by JimmyJames

[softlynow 1,783]

24 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I agree the wealth tax probably is a winner politically.  I think it actually is going to have serious problems if it’s implemented, and many European countries that have tried it have now scrapped it.  I think Spain and maybe one or two others are the only ones that still have a wealth tax.  Valuations of illiquid assets, auditing/enforcement, residency gamesmanship and other tax avoidance mechanisms are all significant real problems.   But purely as a way to get votes, anything that appeals to 99% of the people and only has a direct effect on 1% is probably going to be a winner.

M4A and The Green New Deal are already liabilities, and I don’t think releasing the details of Warren’s M4A plan are going to help.  Biden is basically a senile version of Diamond Joe Quimby, and yet he’s been trending back up in the national polls since mid October as the candidates have set their sights on Warren and M4A.  And now you’ve got Pelosi and others basically endorsing “Not Bernie or Warren.”  I know the explanation from a few here will be about corporatist shitlibs, etc., but it’s really about Democratic leadership reading polls.

Warren may still win because her competition is somehow only an old buffoon, an old communist, and a thirtysomething fucking mayor of Indiana’s Waco.  But the polls have her kind of plateauing the last couple of weeks instead of continuing to pick up momentum.  

I fully admit I don’t get why Biden would be impressive to anyone at this point, but this is still kind of reminding me of Trump in the last primary where everyone assumes he can’t win and will crater any day now, despite the fact that he consistently led every national poll the whole time except for like two weeks of Ben Carson (lol) edging him out in the fall.

National polling doesn’t ultimately matter. Warren currently leads in Iowa and is 2nd to Bernie in NH.

I think the key right now is Biden’s SC lead. If Warren gets early white people wins and that translates to black people breaking her way more in the Palmetto state, game on. If not, Biden may just about have it in the bag by March. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

This is a bad answer.

Liz is promising free (not just at the point of use, but even with regards to premiums/taxes) healthcare for all Americans based on only raising taxes on billionaires, of which there are 600 in the nation.

Am I cool with basically not allowing wealth above $999M? Hell yes, let's do it.
Would that actually fund healthcare for all Americans in a sustainable way? It'll take a lot of different math-focused arguments to convince me of that.

There's so much shit to do. The Green New Deal and M4A themselves are massive, necessary, smart investments that are going to require more revenue than will be generated by Liz's wealth taxes. Everyone is going to have to work together and fund this together in solidarity. Trying to make it seem like a free ride for everyone plays into the bullshit framing of left economic politics as Free Shit For Everyone.

It's not free, it's just smarter and more efficient and more humane and more equitable.

So let's say Liz wins the primary on this message and then even wins the general on this message. What happens when we have to actually raise taxes on the "middle class", which Liz seems to be defining as everyone who isn't a literal billionaire.

Fuck. Just have courage and admit that we can't have it for free.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Jfc you are a beating.  It was a stupid question and Liz basically blew him off.  Dude is obviously trolling for a sound byte by asking about “tax brackets” after she has already played this game for months and released a detailed plan.  Liz should just say Mexico will pay for it every time she gets these questions she has already answered. 

Edited November 3, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bozo_Casanova 26,271]

Reading though Warren’s plan to pay for M4A I’m concerned about “mark to market” annual capital gains taxes on the top 1%.

 

Essentially this would create a tax on unrealized capital gains.

I need to think about this further but at first glance it seems like this *could* create a number of negative externalities, including encouraging the sale of growth stocks, which cuts off the ability of smaller and growing companies to raise capital for expansion. It could also encourage extreme levels of tax loss harvesting, which could have a long term single-digit negative impact on the value of middle class 401(k) holdings. It also seems duplicative of the function of the wealth tax on the same cohort.

 

Anybody want to tell me why I’m wrong?

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

No doubt it would profoundly alter the way investment strategies work, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The 401(k) concept is a scam, as is basically the entire stock market. Most Americans do not own stocks at all. A massive chunk of those who do aren't heavily invested. The fear-mongering about impact on 401(k) returns is more about protecting the vast wealth of the elite class than making sure Joe and Margaret can retired at 65.

If we are actually concerned about Joe and Margaret in their dotage, we should deal with that directly rather than pump public funds into what is little more than a rigged casino.

[RomaVicta 29,769]

On 11/1/2019 at 4:02 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I hear you but I think that the Democrats are setting themselves up for a mistake if they go so far Left that many in the center decide to sit out the election because they see no one that represents them.  If they think that nominating an extreme progressive will cast a wide net, they could very well be disappointed and miss a relatively easy opportunity.   

Going back to Nixon's political advisors (Ailes? Assorted other villains?), people don't vote what they love; they vote what they hate.

For once, the GOPs have put forth their true face with Trump which is a face a lot of people can hate. The GOPs didn't want to do that. They would prefer to stick with amiable dunces like Reagan and W. Bush or milquetoast types like HW Bush or Romney, but Trump crashed the party and seized the hate engine.

Americans who vote, as Nixon's coterie so accurately predicted/shaped, will show up to stick a pin in either the illusory ebil lib or the actually evil Trump. The GOPs will chant "socialism," and maybe it will work, but it will take a lot to shift the hate scales so that a turd like Trump gets to stick to the wall for another term should he make it to the end of his first term. Even if he's gone, the rancid stink will remain.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,271]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

No doubt it would profoundly alter the way investment strategies work, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The 401(k) concept is a scam, as is basically the entire stock market. Most Americans do not own stocks at all. A massive chunk of those who do aren't heavily invested. The fear-mongering about impact on 401(k) returns is more about protecting the vast wealth of the elite class than making sure Joe and Margaret can retired at 65.

If we are actually concerned about Joe and Margaret in their dotage, we should deal with that directly rather than pump public funds into what is little more than a rigged casino.

Well thats a great demonstration of the power of ideology to drive the Dunning-Kruger effect. 

My post was not about anything your post is responsive to. Tax realized returns all you want. Taxing unrealized returns will hurt the little guy more than the big one

1) I don't really care much about the impact to strategy. I'm concerned about pricing distortion the responsive strategies cause. Both up and down at different points. When you tax "value" rather than transactions you've placed a quantifiable value on a hypothetical thing. You know, like how Enron booked revenue from "mark to market" project value. That was a super great outcome for the little guy. 

2) I didn't imply or suggest any opinion that 401(k) plans are good for people or the country. You probably like defined pension funds with high capital reserve requirements like the one my CEO terminated. ME TOO!  However, the reality is that 60Million Americans have most of their non-residential accrued savings in them, however small. You can't erase those people with your ideological bullshit.  And I didn't overstate the impact to 401Ks either. I said long term single digits. By the way - lets talk about property taxes. those are based on a "mark to market" method. You know those are regressive, right? Working class and old people get priced out, the richest benefit. And if you give the old and the poor an exemption on their homestead, that causes higher prices for the young and the working classes.  Again, Not a great outcome for Joe and Margaret.  

3) The elite class can easily get around this particular tax and even come out ahead of where they would without it. if you had read and understood my post you would understand why.

Edited November 3, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[tantric superman 4,667]

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

If we are actually concerned about Joe and Margaret in their dotage, we should deal with that directly rather than pump public funds into what is little more than a rigged casino.

You don't need to be concerned about tantric and Margaret in our dotage, because we did exactly what we were told to do in saving for retirement.  The point is, you don't have to worry about people who actually tried to responsibly save. 

Policy should be based on making sure the markets function and allowing more people to get into those markets, rather than blowing shit up.

Tax capital appropriately and distribute capital. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

8 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The point is, you don't have to worry about people who actually tried to responsibly save. 

Everyone who tries succeeds? Sounds like magical right-wing economic thinking.

[tantric superman 4,667]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Everyone who tries succeeds? Sounds like magical right-wing economic thinking.

Everybody who put 10% away in a diversified equity oriented 401(k) plan for the last 25 years has succeeded, yes.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Just now, tantric superman said:

Everybody who put 10% away in a diversified equity oriented 401(k) plan for the last 25 years has succeeded, yes.

And what if people couldn't put away 10% because of economic/health/life stressors?

Fuck 'em.

[tantric superman 4,667]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

And what if people couldn't put away 10% because of economic/health/life stressors?

Fuck 'em.

No, fuck you.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

No, fuck you.

lol ok

[tantric superman 4,667]

It's obviously impossible for you to fathom a policy that doesn't punish non-multi-millionairres who have successfully saved or set themselves up that there is a likelihood that they will pay for their own retirements.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

What "punishment" do you believe I propose? Small tax increases, that's a "punishment" in your overly-emotional mind?

[tantric superman 4,667]

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The fear-mongering about impact on 401(k) returns is more about protecting the vast wealth of the elite class than making sure Joe and Margaret can retired at 65.

If we are actually concerned about Joe and Margaret in their dotage, we should deal with that directly rather than pump public funds into what is little more than a rigged casino.

You're the guy who posted about concerns about Joe and Margaret.  I'm not being emotional.  I'm just stating that many Joe's and Margaret's are fine.  If you have a large number of folks who are planning for certain rules to be followed in their retirement, you had best measure the cost of disruptive changes to those rules.

Quick google search - 8 trillion in IRAs and 401ks in the US. 

[Guest Lobo]

How will the living estate tax ‘jive’ with ERISA/qualified dollars?   Serious question.  

[ChiTownDoc 21,097]

11 hours ago, tantric superman said:

It's obviously impossible for you to fathom a policy that doesn't punish non-multi-millionairres who have successfully saved or set themselves up that there is a likelihood that they will pay for their own retirements.

Anyone who’s got a dollar in savings is too rich for BT’s liking.  Except the career politician millionaire who he says will save us.  Lol

[Fozzz 152]

lmao she's going to lose to Trump

 

[6th Street 6,354]

Damn even Bernie is more likeable than Warren in the Midwest 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

tantric, what's the "punishment" I propose for people with 401(k)s?

The 401(k) is a scam and we should not keep propping it up as if it is a means of attaining retirement that makes sense. The entire market is a scam designed to funnel wealth into the hands of a shrinking few.

If our concern is the retirements of Joe & Margaret, then we should curb and regulate the markets properly and make sure Joe & Margaret are taken care of in their dotage regardless of what happens in the rigged game that is the stock market. The fact that criminals and bastards got us into the scam doesn't mean we should be obligated to stay there. We are throwing good money after bad, just like we did when we bailed out the major financial firms only to let them get us back into the same situation now.

2 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Damn even Bernie is more likeable than Warren in the Midwest 

Bernie is hugely popular among the young and working classes. He'll steamroll the Blue Wall states. He won every single county in West Virginia and beat Hillary, who had the full support of the national media and entire Democratic apparatus. Beat her in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan, too.

[Fozzz 152]

A vote for Warren in the primary might as well be a vote for Trump in the general.  She needs to drop out immediately.  

[bad_teammate 13,132]

For Democrats to win those states they need to activate unlikely voters. These models are all about likely voters, who are heavily old and white. If "electability" is someone's #1 concern, then they should be supporting the primary candidate who excites and motivates the unlikely voters (young, poor, minority, etc...)

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[HenryJames 65,884]

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

lmao she's going to lose to Trump
 

Candidates aside, that is terrifying.

[horncyclist 1,384]

It's one poll and taken in the abstract. Things will look different after a campaign. But yeah, he should be polling at 10% in every state. This is how dumb and/ or corrupt this country is.