Jump to content

Elizabeth Warren 2020

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

lmao she's going to lose to Trump

 

Looks like Trump beats all of them or they all beat Trump if we’re incorporating the margin of error.  All this polls shows is that swing states are swingy and swingable. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
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

6th Street

6th Street 6412

Posted
Posted

Warren is too anti-business to win the general election. She has plans to take down the insurance industry, oil and gas and it's entire supply chain, and break up FANG. That's well over 2M jobs collectively. The better strategy would be to focus on job creation instead of destruction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted

Yeah I'm struggling to rationalize how everyone can just magically save 10%. Do you know how many people are living paycheck to paycheck and just how much student debt Millennials and soon Zoomers will own?? This is leading down to some libertarian "what happened to personal responsibility" level of argument.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Warren is too anti-business to win the general election. She has plans to take down the insurance industry, oil and gas and it's entire supply chain, and break up FANG. That's well over 2M jobs collectively. The better strategy would be to focus on job creation instead of destruction. 

 

If being against corruption, monopolies, corporate welfare, and against companies running wild without rules and regulation or oversight equals anti-business, then I pray many more candidates come out as anti-business. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

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

 

If y'all are reckless and nominate Warren,  you're going to force Fozz to vote for Trump again and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT!!!

  • Like 8
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
6th Street

6th Street 6412

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

If being against corruption, monopolies, corporate welfare, and against companies running wild without rules and regulation or oversight equals anti-business, then I pray many more candidates come out as anti-business. 

Putting people out of work and crushing our large companies is not a rational or well thought out plan. All it does is drive slowing GDP growth, higher unemployment, and lower innovation, and share loss to markets like Korea, Germany, and Taiwan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

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.

You're making three propositions:

1) 401(k)s as a means of attaining retirement do not make sense.

2) The entire market is a scam

3) the market is designed to funnel wealth into the hands of the shrinking few.

Provide some back up for these propositions.

I'd propose that if the government placed mandatory taxes on folks and put their money into target date funds, required all companies to provide stocks to employees in additional funds, had more aggressive progressive tax rates (aggressive enough to increase revenue but not to stifle innovation) and have a similarly designed capital gains tax we'd solve concerns about 1 and 3.  I'm sure more fundamental changes would be needed for you not to consider the market as a scam.  To me, saying the market is a scam is like saying that money is a scam.  The market and money are ways to transact business and its up to regulation to handle inefficiencies and injustices in allocations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21154

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 6th Street said:

Warren is too anti-business to win the general election. She has plans to take down the insurance industry, oil and gas and it's entire supply chain, and break up FANG. That's well over 2M jobs collectively. The better strategy would be to focus on job creation instead of destruction. 

She will swing heavily to the middle in the general - or she will lose.  She’s not dumb.  

Edited by ChiTownDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

Yeah I'm struggling to rationalize how everyone can just magically save 10%.

No one said everyone can do this.  Many people can do this.  The question is how many, and whether they will have a say in the election, and whether you want to propose policies that may cause those people to vote against you.

I don't think "the millionaire next door" should define public policy, but there are large numbers of people who have saved, who are perhaps in government jobs with a pension, etc. who aren't billionaires but who nevertheless followed the proposed rules of the road and do have a nest egg.  I think the Dems, especially the progressives, need to be careful of messing with  those folks, because a whole lot of them are solid D voters.  Like the majority of people with DC government jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1391

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

She I’ll swing heavily to the middle in the general - or she will lose.  She’s not dumb.  

Yes, she'll go hard on corruption and pushing reforms. Which are gating items for everything she wants to get done. Number one item for any President after Trump should be reforms that ensure that corruption on the level of what Trump has perpetrated never happens again. Warren is uniquely positioned to deliver this message in a general election.

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

ChiTownDoc 21154

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

None of her policies will matter unless Dems also win the Senate and they kill the filibuster. 

Actually she can reverse a ton of Trump’s executive decisions, like on climate.  Let’s be honest here - Trump taught many of us the president has more power than we thought.  Going forward he has set a terrible precedent.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31489

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Actually she can reverse a ton of Trump’s executive decisions, like on climate.  Let’s be honest here - Trump taught many of us the president has more power than we thought.  Going forward he has set a terrible precedent.  

This is true.  Presidents have been pushing executive power pretty hard going back to 41 (Cheney and his ilk were real big on it), and Obama was a user, as well.  However, most of them were subtle-ish about it.  I'd say Trump has set the cause of expansion of executive power back quite a bit.  He's actually established a few judicial limits on it and made it clear that it's a dangerous thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
6th Street

6th Street 6412

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

You're making three propositions:

1) 401(k)s as a means of attaining retirement do not make sense.

2) The entire market is a scam

3) the market is designed to funnel wealth into the hands of the shrinking few.

Provide some back up for these propositions.

I'd propose that if the government placed mandatory taxes on folks and put their money into target date funds, required all companies to provide stocks to employees in additional funds, had more aggressive progressive tax rates (aggressive enough to increase revenue but not to stifle innovation) and have a similarly designed capital gains tax we'd solve concerns about 1 and 3.  I'm sure more fundamental changes would be needed for you not to consider the market as a scam.  To me, saying the market is a scam is like saying that money is a scam.  The market and money are ways to transact business and its up to regulation to handle inefficiencies and injustices in allocations. 

Don't bother. He's obviously never taken an economics course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thrawn

Thrawn 538

Posted
Posted

It seems like it wasn’t that long ago when people kept reminding me that Warren was a Republican well into her adult life and as a result was really some evil capitalist. Now I’m being told on a daily basis how fucking liberal she is and how the midwest  just won’t go along with that.
 

Frankly I’m ok with anyone but Biden in the primary. Although, even if he wins the primary I will still vote for him over the Dotard. At that time all that will matter is who can get the most people out to vote in those key states. No crystal ball is going to be able to predict that at this point in time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11675

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Actually she can reverse a ton of Trump’s executive decisions, like on climate.  Let’s be honest here - Trump taught many of us the president has more power than we thought.  Going forward he has set a terrible precedent.  

Pen and fucking phone dude. Pen and fucking phone.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Actually she can reverse a ton of Trump’s executive decisions, like on climate.  Let’s be honest here - Trump taught many of us the president has more power than we thought.  Going forward he has set a terrible precedent.  

lol Liz! needs to win two out of MI, WI, and PA for her to do anything about Trump's executive decisions, and that shit ain't happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

You're making three propositions:

1) 401(k)s as a means of attaining retirement do not make sense.

2) The entire market is a scam

3) the market is designed to funnel wealth into the hands of the shrinking few.

Provide some back up for these propositions.

I'd propose that if the government placed mandatory taxes on folks and put their money into target date funds, required all companies to provide stocks to employees in additional funds, had more aggressive progressive tax rates (aggressive enough to increase revenue but not to stifle innovation) and have a similarly designed capital gains tax we'd solve concerns about 1 and 3.  I'm sure more fundamental changes would be needed for you not to consider the market as a scam.  To me, saying the market is a scam is like saying that money is a scam.  The market and money are ways to transact business and its up to regulation to handle inefficiencies and injustices in allocations. 

the concept of the dollar is a giant pyramid scheme. 

solution?  invest in pesos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13208

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Yeah I'm struggling to rationalize how everyone can just magically save 10%. Do you know how many people are living paycheck to paycheck and just how much student debt Millennials and soon Zoomers will own?? This is leading down to some libertarian "what happened to personal responsibility" level of argument.

It's not leading down to it, it's where these freaks already live.

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

You're making three propositions:

1) 401(k)s as a means of attaining retirement do not make sense.

2) The entire market is a scam

3) the market is designed to funnel wealth into the hands of the shrinking few.

Provide some back up for these propositions.

Are you disputing them?

Quote

I'd propose that if the government placed mandatory taxes on folks and put their money into target date funds, required all companies to provide stocks to employees in additional funds, had more aggressive progressive tax rates (aggressive enough to increase revenue but not to stifle innovation) and have a similarly designed capital gains tax we'd solve concerns about 1 and 3. 

Aggressive progressive income and capital gains taxes? Is that not "punishment"?

51 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Don't bother. He's obviously never taken an economics course. 

Maybe your problem is that your economics courses instilled garbage, inhuman economic politics and led you to believe you're far smarter and more capable than you actually are. A McCombs byproduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Message Board User

Message Board User 12395

Posted
Posted

Even if Warrens proposals were sensible (which they aren’t), she’s not anywhere near likable enough that the midwesterners  will listen to her.

The polls this morning rated Warren is much more unlikable than the other candidates and that’s a far more intractable problem for her than her idiotic and unserious policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
6th Street

6th Street 6412

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not leading down to it, it's where these freaks already live.

Are you disputing them?

Aggressive progressive income and capital gains taxes? Is that not "punishment"?

Maybe your problem is that your economics courses instilled garbage, inhuman economic politics and led you to believe you're far smarter and more capable than you actually are. A McCombs byproduct.

Do you hide your money in a mattress? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13208

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Lol, what if the dumb uneducated people were really the smart ones?!  Woahhhhhh

I got you BT, I went to OU and even I think you have zero clue.  

Dumb, uneducated... or someone with a master's from Cockrell. Engineers aren't known as people who think highly of the business guys. Maybe that's not how it was at OU since you guys had to all share the same chalkboard and feed bucket. More camaraderie there, I bet.

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13208

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

1. People want their 401(k) to go away, because they really don’t like earning astronomically higher tax deferred returns on retirement savings than what Social Security would pay

Horseshit.

"astronomically" lol

24 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I know it’s fun to poke the bear, but just remember this guy argues for nationalizing the private sector, federal rent control (and even centrally planned housing assignments in one thread), and various totalitarian proposals.  

 

I'm for nationalizing some private sectors (health insurance, energy production and distribution, things required for humans to live should be under democratic control), but no interest in nationalizing luxuries/non-necessities.

100% fine with federal rent control and public housing. Everyone should have a home.

"Various totalitarian proposals" doing as much work as "astronomical" earlier in your post.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted

New Plan:

This starts with care in how we deploy our forces. Decades of wars have sapped our strength, and the burden has fallen primarily on military personnel and their families. It's not fair to ask them to solve problems that don’t have a military solution.

We can honor our veterans by ending endless wars, reining in our bloated defense budget and reducing the influence of defense contractors at the Pentagon, and bringing our troops home responsibly—and then providing our veterans with the benefits they’ve earned.

Our all-volunteer military has struggled to attract and retain sufficient personnel. A Warren administration will preserve best-in-class benefits for military personnel, and ensure we honor our commitments to those who have served.

Military families are the backbone of our armed forces, but they face unique challenges. I'll prioritize military spouse employment, ensure families have high-quality child care and education, provide safe and affordable housing, and protect wounded warriors and their caregivers.

We must ensure the safety of those who serve or have served in uniform. I'll fight to eliminate military sexual assault, expand mental health services and work to end military and veteran suicide, and treat the opioid and addiction crisis.

A Warren administration will protect the rights of LGBTQ+, women, Black, and Latinx service members. I'll reverse Trump's shameful ban on trans service members on Day One. My administration will protect veterans and family members of serving military personnel from deportation.

My administration will ease the transition of veterans leaving military service and help prepare them to return to civilian life. We’ll create a seamless transition from the DOD to the VA, eliminate the benefits backlog, and expand career opportunities for our vets.

Finally, my administration will invest in the VA and reject attempts to privatize it. Under #MedicareForAll, veterans will also have the option to get high-quality health care from non-VA doctors and hospitals at no additional cost.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will lead our armed forces with awareness of the unique challenges service members, veterans, and military families face. I’ll honor our troops by not only executing sound military strategy, but also caring for them after they take off the uniform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We can honor our veterans by ending endless wars, reining in our bloated defense budget and reducing the influence of defense contractors at the Pentagon, and bringing our troops home responsibly—and then providing our veterans with the benefits they’ve earned.

Uh, someone want to alert Liz! that she voted to increase Trump's defense budget by $80 billion in 2017?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Fozzz said:

Uh, someone want to alert Liz! that she voted to increase Trump's defense budget by $80 billion in 2017?  

This is a popular talking point of the Berners.  It’s a weird flex because like Bernie voting for Biden’s oppressive crime or Bernie staning for the $1.5 trillion Lockheed Martin F-35 project because it brought good jobs to Vermont, Liz was able to get provisions in the defense bill for her constituents with her vote.

"The final bill also includes many important provisions for Massachusetts, including fully funding family housing, safety upgrades, and other critical military construction at our military installations; providing increased funding and authority for the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental; and ensuring our National Guard is fully equipped to defend Massachusetts and the nation," 

Senator Warren said.   

"I do not support everything in this defense bill. I'm concerned about the funding level, which would provide nearly $700 billion to the Pentagon at a time when this Administration is proposing to slash funding for critical domestic priorities like education, healthcare, and infrastructure," said the senator. "I am disappointed that the final bill does not include an amendment I cosponsored with Senator Joni Ernst that would have helped ensure servicemembers receive the pay raises they are entitled to. And I am deeply worried about provisions in the bill that would authorize a research and development program for a new intermediate-range Ground Launched Cruise Missile, which would open the door to America's exit from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, one of the foundational nonproliferation treaties of the 20th century."

"On balance, I believe this bill will have a direct and positive impact on the lives of our men and women in uniform, and that it will do a lot of good for Massachusetts and for our nation," Senator

 

 

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...