1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[OFFICIAL] Elizabeth Warren for President thread

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Jan 1, 2019.

  1. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    12,985
    Likes Received:
    8,434
    Lol billionaire uncomfortable with Warren or Sanders, I'm shocked.

    I think Warrens's wealth tax would cost Cuban about 80 million dollars per year, on top of increasing other taxes for him and his businesses. Sanders's wealth tax even more, considerably more I believe.

    In what world would Cuban not attack Warren and Bernie lmao.

    This is something people on the right, and independents like you @dachuda86 , should be just as happy about as those on the left, everybody dislikes the wealthy elite right? We dislike how they don't pay their taxes, dislikes the corruption they bring with all of their ridiculously over the top wealth and power.

    Of course, mainstream media, both on the right and left, but very strong on the right, tries to protect the uber-wealthy at all times, which brainwashes some.
     
    dachuda86 likes this.
  2. dachuda86

    dachuda86 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    12,266
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    I am not against taxing the wealthy. However it won't happen... they would put a quick stop to it because they control the game board. I am not a fan of warren but taxing the rich a bit more is not a problem in my book. We should have a more lenient tax on the consuner class that drives our consuner economy and tax chinese goods and the rich imo. That said it may send our economy into a death spiral as they bitch and moan and intentionally lay people off and close up shop and pull back on investing... they may even move countries like in france. I would like to see a plan to raise them without fallout.
     
    Hakeemtheking and jiggyfly like this.
  3. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    30,841
    Likes Received:
    41,417
  4. CometsWin

    CometsWin Imperial cereal killer
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    25,544
    Likes Received:
    7,476

    Katie Porter is legit. She's a great twitta follow.
     
  5. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    16,841
    Likes Received:
    6,383
    Porter and Pressley are actually two really good endorsements. Real popular among progressives but make Trumpers go crazy like folks like AOC and Tahlib do.

    Katie Porter also is one of the smartest members of Congress especially on financial issues of corporate corruption. I think that’s Warrens ticket to the nomination and the win too.... appealing to the Midwest voter with simple messaging about economic corruption in partnership with Republicans who have destroyed the middle class through policies that allow corporation executives to suck workers and the American consumer dry.
     
    Nook, CometsWin, B-Bob and 2 others like this.
  6. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    40,382
    Likes Received:
    6,058
    Agreed. Pretty solid choices for her. I agree 100% about using that as Warren's strategy should she get the nomination. I don't know how much it will help her secure the nomination, but I don't think it will hurt. The thing with the primaries is that many states have their own different priorities.
     
    Major and RayRay10 like this.
  7. TheresTheDagger

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    8,621
    Likes Received:
    5,394
    Her kids only went to 1/1024th private schools...

     
  8. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    30,841
    Likes Received:
    41,417
  9. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    37,792
    Likes Received:
    13,611
    I thought she sent her kids back to the reservation for school.


    HO HO HO
     
    TheresTheDagger and Nook like this.
  10. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    30,841
    Likes Received:
    41,417
    George Will on Warren in the Washington Post:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e64b1e-112e-11ea-9cd7-a1becbc82f5e_story.html

    Elizabeth Warren is progressivism’s Donald Trump
    [​IMG]
    Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speaks during a Democratic presidential debate on Nov. 20 in Atlanta. (John Bazemore/AP)
    By
    George F. Will
    Columnist
    November 29, 2019 at 1:19 p.m. EST


    Elizabeth Warren was supposed to be the thinking person’s Bernie Sanders, impeccably progressive but with realistic arithmetic connecting aspirations to resources. Then came her explanation of how she would finance Medicare-for-all.

    Before Republicans wearied of pretending to care about fiscal rectitude, they pretended that they could eliminate budget deficits by eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse,” a pledge that demonstrated their familiarity with fraud. Warren prices her Medicare-for-all at $20.5 trillion over a decade, which is $10 trillion to $14 trillion less than estimates from serious sources (the Rand Corp., the Urban Institute, the Mercatus Center). She makes audacious assumptions that would make Republicans blush, if they still could.

    For example, 11 percent of her plan’s cost will be covered by cutting payments to providers such as hospitals (35 percent below current private insurance rates) and physicians (25 percent). Does her clairvoyance extend to how many of the former will then close and how many of the latter will retire? She assumes that states and cities, which cannot be compelled to do so, will send to Washington the $6.1 trillion they spend on health care. She assumes that her administration can collect an additional $2.3 trillion by shrinking the “tax gap,” i.e., reducing tax evasion, a decades-old aspiration in Washington that would have been accomplished already if it were possible. And so on, and on.

    Warren cheerily says, “No one gets left behind. . . . Some of the people currently working in health insurance will work in other parts of insurance, in life insurance, in auto insurance,” which supposedly will suddenly need the 370,000 people who today work in private health insurance. She sees society as a Tinkertoy for clever people like her to disassemble and reassemble, shuffling around hundreds of thousands of people.

    Never has there been such a brittle prospective presidency. Warren is vain about the specificity of her plans for expanding the federal government’s scope far beyond what either the New Deal or Great Society envisioned. Yet the entire edifice of her “transformation” of society by government spending and fiats rests upon the rickety assumption that her proposed wealth tax is constitutional.

    But because the Constitution forbids “direct” federal taxes, the 16th Amendment was necessary to make the income tax possible. Warren’s evident theory — that the federal government can, without an amendment, impose a general tax on accumulated wealth — implies that the term “direct” effectively prohibits nothing, so the 16th Amendment was unnecessary.

    Were her wealth tax to survive judicial review, and were it to have its intended effect of steadily shrinking the supply of billionaires, who then would fund progressivism’s agenda? The spending commitments would remain in place, so where would government then go for revenue? To where most of America’s money is: the middle class.

    Warren, whose profile in courage is to foment hostility toward a small minority (“billionaires”), should try an experiment — not at her rallies of the resentful, but with an audience of representative Americans. Ask how many in the audience own an Apple product? The overwhelming majority will raise their hands. Then ask: How many resent the fact that Steve Jobs, Apple’s innovator, died a billionaire? Few hands will be raised.

    Few Americans know, but most intuit, what economist William D. Nordhaus, a Nobel laureate, argued in a 2004 paper: Innovators capture only about 2.2 percent of the surplus from innovation. The surplus is, basically, the innovation’s value to society, minus the cost of producing it.

    Warren’s dependence on a wealth tax announces progressivism’s failure of nerve, its unwillingness to require anyone other than a tiny crumb of society’s upper crust to pay significantly for the cornucopia of benefits that she clearly thinks everyone wants — but only if someone else pays for them.

    The way Warren has cooked the books regarding her health-care financing testifies to Donald Trump’s success in normalizing preposterousness. Candidate Trump breezily promised to erase the national debt in eight years, which would have required retiring $2.4 trillion a year, a sum equal to 55 percent of the fiscal 2019 budget. Warren’s politically, socially and economically surreal bookkeeping is more egregious than his because she is intelligent enough to know better, and because she used ingenuity, which he does not possess, to disguise her disingenuousness.

    Her cachet has been intellectual gravitas, supposedly demonstrated by blueprints for refurbishing everything. Suddenly, “the thinking person’s Bernie Sanders” seems more like progressivism’s Trump, exacerbating social hostilities and playing fast and loose with facts. Markets, for which Warren has minimal respect, are information-generating mechanisms, and America’s political market is working. Her Medicare-for-all plan provides indispensable information, not about governance but about her.

    Read more from George F. Will’s archive or follow him on Facebook.
     
  11. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Insider Newsletter™ 2X Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    29,701
    Likes Received:
    7,819
    George Will still gasping for air?!?

    Does that mean she’ll lose the war in Iraq?
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  12. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    40,382
    Likes Received:
    6,058
    What??????? A long-time conservative disagree with Warren's ideas? I can't believe it!!!!!!
     
  13. Commodore

    Commodore Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    23,628
    Likes Received:
    6,547
    how would one's wealth be assessed to calculate a wealth tax?

    Agree that a federal wealth tax is unconstitutional.
     
  14. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    32,710
    Likes Received:
    32,285
    My understanding is her kids went to both public and private school.

    A lot of great politicians lied (Lincoln and FDR) but she does seem to have an issue always telling the truth. Outside of a nomination process I don’t know that it hurts her because she would be running against the biggest liar in modern American political history.
     
    Andre0087 likes this.
  15. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    35,543
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    The arguments he made are mathematics - and they are ones that health care economists on both the right and the left have made numerous times. The fairytale nature of her math may be part of why she dropped in the polls - the timing matches when she released the details of her plan. Attacking the messenger doesn't change the issue of bad math, though.
     
  16. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    22,048
    Likes Received:
    9,589
    I don't think anyone here has done the proper "math" and considered all sides of the ledger to properly determine the viability. So many factors that opponent's don't consider such as how more people with access to preventitve care will lead to cheaper costs down the road or how having one giant pool of people under coverage distributes risk significantly more which also reduces costs.
     
  17. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    35,543
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Absolutely - but economists on all sides agree her numbers are faulty. Regardless of long-term effects, the plan's numbers are not viable in the short-term. Her "brand" is built on the idea of detailed plans and a level of wonkiness/credibility. The idea that she is "Bernie-with-details" is sort of what launched her initial surge to separate herself from Bernie and it applied to so many of her detailed plans. But she avoided health care details for a long time - with good reason - unless she was forced into it by her opponents. This plan went against her brand because it's pretty obvious that the numbers don't add up. It's hard to break down cause-and-effect because her drop coincided with her plan release but also Bernie's recovery from his heart issues and Pete's massive ad campaign in Iowa/NH, but I suspect with the questionable details of her plan, she lost some of her Bernie-with-details credibility. If the numbers aren't reliable, then Bernie's lack-of-numbers plan is just as good.
     
  18. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    40,068
    Likes Received:
    32,851
    The George Will article was very good
     
    jcf likes this.
  19. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    37,792
    Likes Received:
    13,611
    You just made @Os Trigonum ('s) day.
     
  20. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    40,382
    Likes Received:
    6,058
    I agree her numbers aren't there yet. However there are economists from both sides who agree that M4A will save money overall.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now