Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 09-01-2019, 11:36 AM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razncain View Post
Their passion for firearms far exceed mine, can't say I really even have a passion for them, I've got less than 10.
A giggle snuck from this hombre on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Biden is sort of a version of Trump, in that both are older white guys who will trade insults and boasts. Warren is an intellectual who will talk policy; Trump can’t compete on that level, and his insults and boasts will seem excessively juvenile by comparison. I truly think she would win in a landslide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
You,re assuming that most voters are intellectuals who want to talk policy.
To win the election you have to make people feel good in their guts, not their brains.
I'll go with chap on this - the Wi/Mi/Penn blue collar demographic (who will determine the outcome of the 2020 election) will, without question, unfortunately rely on the stupid optics of whoever comes across as the more imposing Debate Tough Guy. Abstruse shit like "policy" will go over their heads, right? Won't register with them. Too wonky, gubbermental. Warren will come across, then, as nothing more than some wimpy schoolmarm to them, and who wants some 'finger-waving shrill old granny' telling them what to do?
  #152  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:45 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Exactly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Angry is exactly what she needs for the general election. The American populace as a whole likes angry: That's how Trump won.

I would call this highly debatable in general. But to whatever extent it’s true, it only applies to white men. You can’t be an angry woman in presidential politics, or an angry black man for that matter. Is that an unfair double standard? Of course. But there’s a lot of unfair shit we have to factor into our strategery.
  #153  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:15 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,128
An interesting read in Politico today about Warren's relationship with Obama and his administration: 'Why are you pissing in our face?': Inside Warren' War with the Obama Team.

I'm still processing the article myself, and how this applies to the 2020 race. Any others' thoughts would be welcome. But I do think that if she were to win the nomination, it might be important to extend an olive leaf to this powerful contingent of the Dem party by picking an running mate from out of the Obama circle. Julian Castro or Anthony Foxx perhaps. Hell maybe even Tom Perez or Eric Holder.
  #154  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:23 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
I am foursquare with the Obama team on this. Reading that, I was reminded of how dishonest she has been about TARP over the years. She constantly refers to it as a “taxpayer bailout”, strongly implying that taxpayers were left holding the bag—when in fact they made a profit from those loans.
  #155  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:50 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Exactly.





I would call this highly debatable in general. But to whatever extent it’s true, it only applies to white men. You can’t be an angry woman in presidential politics, or an angry black man for that matter. Is that an unfair double standard? Of course. But there’s a lot of unfair shit we have to factor into our strategery.
I have to agree with Slacker about this (I don't necessarily agree that Warren does come off as angry, but that unfair double standard certainly does exist).
  #156  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:52 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Steal them or use a Straw man seller.

But they only need one, so a extra $20 in taxes isnt going to make a difference.

Idea like Warrens will only hurt the serious collectors and targets shooters, like those qualifying for our Olympics teams.

What we need is to crack down on Straw man sellers.
Won't somebody think of our Olympians??
  #157  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:54 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
A couple people have posted to the effect that "most Americans aren't paying attention yet", but that's really not true; polls show that most Americans are in fact paying some attention, and a large minority describe themselves as paying "a lot of" attention. Just FYI.
  #158  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:05 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
You,re assuming that most voters are intellectuals who want to talk policy.
To win the election you have to make people feel good in their guts, not their brains.
I recall when a reporter told Adlai Stevenson, "You have the support of every thinking American!" Stevenson replied, "That's fine, but I need a majority to win!"
  #159  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:07 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
1) Warren is not only going up against Biden, so it's not yet a head to head matchup like it will be later in the primaries or in the general. Recall that the next democratic debate where Warren and Biden are on the same stage.
I think that's going to happen tonight.
  #160  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:09 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
You mean Donald "don't throw me in the Biden patch" Trump? It's real simple. Biden ran for President a couple of times and didn't get close.
So did Trump. Every election cycle is a different environment.

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-12-2019 at 07:10 PM.
  #161  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:11 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 194
I think she has cemented the progressive wing frontrunner for now. She has more to her than Sanders.
  #162  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:28 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,751
I reserve the right to change my mind (again) but after last night’s performance I’m on team Warren. She struck me as having the most well thought out plans for addressing the major issues, especially health care.
  #163  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:02 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
She's at the top of my list now, too - accomplished, with a compelling background (not that it's Trump-proof), steady and unflappable and articulate. I wish she weren't so open about adopting positions from other candidates that prove popular, but that's how the process does work. Her age isn't a factor because she is still vigorous, while the older candidates clearly are not. It isn't ageism, btw, it's stamina-ism and alertness-ism.

I'd be happy with Buttigieg as President, too, or Booker, with Harris and Klobuchar as my third tier, all for similar reasons. Of course I'll vote for the Dem nominee, since any of their candidates are far superior to the incumbent, even Williamson. But Biden and Sanders have both had their runs already and there isn't enough left in their tanks. O'Rourke did a fine job starting his Senate campaign and needs to continue it. Castro wasn't going anywhere and now he can't, and Yang needs to quit making the rest of the party look as foolish as he is.
  #164  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:22 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
And, of course, "Nevertheless, she persisted".

There would certainly be some satisfaction, I won't deny it, in seeing Moscow Mitch's face at her inauguration, although there would be quite a bit more in him no longer being majority leader.
  #165  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:29 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
She and Bernie did nothing to dispel the very valid points that other candidates made against their healthcare proposals. Not a single thing she said answered the basic question of why we can’t let people decide for themselves whether they want to be on “Medicare for all who want it” instead of forcing everyone onto Medicare for all. And she makes the same error a good friend of mine made in assuming that everyone hates their health insurance company. I showed him some polling demonstrating otherwise, and he was genuinely shocked and said he must be living in a bubble and that he would have to reevaluate his support for Warren.
  #166  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:45 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Do people like their insurance companies, or just the coverage their plan provides (if they're fortunate enough to have one)? Would they still like them if they saw what they really cost, compared to Medicare? There's more to it.

The result of the next phase of reform is unlikely to be exactly what anyone currently proposes. The political negotiation process would certainly leave some room for the lobbyist-heavy Big Insurance - even Britain's NHS has room for it - even if it amounts to just selling more Medicare Supplement packages. But a negotiation starts with asking for more than you know you're going to get, and it isn't wrong of Warren to stake out such a position.

On the other side, we're still waiting for "Repeal and Replace", when all we've actually had is "Vandalize".
  #167  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:51 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
I am now shifted to soft on Team Warren but I am still concerned that she has not yet had to demonstrate any ability to weather attacks with a track record of doing poorly when attacked in the past. And I am concerned about some things, such as the pandering she does on some issues that she is smart enough to know better about (e.g. nuclear power), and the political loser for that is MfA.

Still for now I am more believing the theory that supports her electability than the one for Biden. It's not his gaffes though. Sanders would be toast; Harris showed she does not have the goods; and no one else has any chance whatsoever.

Given that it is rapidly becoming clear that the race is shaping up to be her v Biden I am surprised everyone else has avoided going after her at all. She's been given a kid glove approach and I don't think it serves her well. People need to see how she can be strong and effective in the face of attacks, if she can be.
  #168  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:01 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Given that it is rapidly becoming clear that the race is shaping up to be her v Biden
You don't ever worry about being even slightly premature, do you?
  #169  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:06 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
Well way back when I was dating ... ��
  #170  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:19 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I am now shifted to soft on Team Warren but I am still concerned that she has not yet had to demonstrate any ability to weather attacks with a track record of doing poorly when attacked in the past. And I am concerned about some things, such as the pandering she does on some issues that she is smart enough to know better about (e.g. nuclear power), and the political loser for that is MfA.

Still for now I am more believing the theory that supports her electability than the one for Biden. It's not his gaffes though. Sanders would be toast; Harris showed she does not have the goods; and no one else has any chance whatsoever.

Given that it is rapidly becoming clear that the race is shaping up to be her v Biden I am surprised everyone else has avoided going after her at all. She's been given a kid glove approach and I don't think it serves her well. People need to see how she can be strong and effective in the face of attacks, if she can be.
So if she doesn't show the ability to weather attacks, are you back softly on team Biden? Or was his garbled debate finish disqualifying?
  #171  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:30 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Well way back when I was dating ... ��

LOL! ISWYDT


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Do people like their insurance companies, or just the coverage their plan provides (if they're fortunate enough to have one)?

I’m not about to doodle pictures of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield logo with little hearts all around it, but I actually do get a warm feeling when I see it. You, my aforementioned friend, and Warren may all feel that I am wrong to have this reaction, but I doubt I am anywhere near alone.
  #172  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:41 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
Probably back to Biden. They weren’t disqualifying to me, just enough to make me more worried about his general campaign than I am currently of hers. It’s still close. He was fine for two hours forty five. Her proving unable to weather an attack? That would be disqualifying.
  #173  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:43 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I’m not about to doodle pictures of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield logo with little hearts all around it, but I actually do get a warm feeling when I see it.
Even when it's on a bill with a box labeled "Patient Balance" at the bottom, and a multi-digit number printed in it?
  #174  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:46 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
I went without health insurance entirely for over a decade, and then spent a couple years with a very bare-bones health plan. Now I have a low deductible and never get denied or seriously delayed for anything, unlike my Canadian relatives. That same bill they send also shows how much they are paying on my behalf for some very expensive sleep studies and complex, high-tech medical equipment. I have no complaints.
  #175  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:53 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Probably back to Biden. They weren’t disqualifying to me, just enough to make me more worried about his general campaign than I am currently of hers. It’s still close. He was fine for two hours forty five. Her proving unable to weather an attack? That would be disqualifying.
At the moment she is not giving much away to attack policy wise. Several others are in line with her. It's when the stage starts getting smaller and the protection of a one-percenter willing to take on Biden and take the hits goes that the race becomes truly alive.

For now her biggest problem will be if she attaches herself too close to Sanders who has plenty of subject matter to attack. But she is smart and seems aware that a dose of pragmatism is needed.

And for the record no democrat is going to bring up the Native American thing to jab her and not once in three debates has she been asked about it.
  #176  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:57 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I went without health insurance entirely for over a decade, and then spent a couple years with a very bare-bones health plan.
Yes, BCBS is much better than no coverage at all. It seems what you're happiest about is simply having coverage. But it's hardly the best you can do.
  #177  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:02 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Probably back to Biden. They weren’t disqualifying to me, just enough to make me more worried about his general campaign than I am currently of hers. It’s still close. He was fine for two hours forty five. Her proving unable to weather an attack? That would be disqualifying.
Here's the thing for me: being able to weather an attack is generally a skill you learn, not an innate ability. Given the DNA test debacle, we can assume she's not a natural. She is unfortunately set up as a minor saint in the party and so I seriously doubt she's going to get the practice she needs.

So if "not being able to weather an attack" is your line in the sand for Warren, I advise you to accept that it's likely true and/or get over it. If you are stuck on the notion of only considering the top two polling, you are faced with two very flawed candidates. You shouldn't take Biden's gaffumbling as so "baked in" to his current numbers. When you're as old as him, people read stuff into it even if you've been doing it forever. Most people voting haven't been closely following Biden forever.

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-13-2019 at 01:02 PM.
  #178  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:03 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Yes, BCBS is much better than no coverage at all. It seems what you're happiest about is simply having coverage. But it's hardly the best you can do.

I would not trade it for the coverage my mom and sister get in Canada (or sometimes don’t get, like when my sister went down to Seattle to pay for her own knee surgery after getting tired of waiting). But Warren wants to force me to do so. As Mayor Pete very astutely wondered aloud, why can’t she trust people to make their own choices?

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-13-2019 at 01:05 PM.
  #179  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:12 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Would any of them trade their Canadian coverage for BCBS, costs included, though? Would you?
  #180  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:44 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
They are fiercely loyal to their system and would not trade. But I’m saying I wouldn’t trade either. I would rather stay with BCBS even with the costs rather than have something “free” that includes the long waits they endure.

Again, why not let everyone choose for themselves rather than force everyone onto the new government system? As long as you have something to cover people who don’t have coverage now, what’s the problem?
  #181  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:02 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Here's the thing for me: being able to weather an attack is generally a skill you learn, not an innate ability. Given the DNA test debacle, we can assume she's not a natural. She is unfortunately set up as a minor saint in the party and so I seriously doubt she's going to get the practice she needs.

So if "not being able to weather an attack" is your line in the sand for Warren, I advise you to accept that it's likely true and/or get over it. If you are stuck on the notion of only considering the top two polling, you are faced with two very flawed candidates. You shouldn't take Biden's gaffumbling as so "baked in" to his current numbers. When you're as old as him, people read stuff into it even if you've been doing it forever. Most people voting haven't been closely following Biden forever.
I am always faced with flawed candidates. Even Obama who I loved more than any other candidate I've ever voted for was flawed.

But as the current best evidence is that she cannot weather attacks well it would be against all logic to just "accept that it's likely true" that she can, that somehow she has suddenly learned how.

I am looking past lots of what else I consider her flaws. Her attempt to sell the political poison pill of healthcare includes misrepresenting both what she is selling and how what we have works. Her position on nuclear is actively harmful to the goal of avoiding catastrophic climate change. (And that is from someone who is not a complete fan.) She is ill-equipped on international policy. I can look past lots of those flaws if I conclude she is in balance the most electable.

If a candidate cannot manage attacks well they are not electable in my mind. It is disqualifying as a candidate no matter what I think of how they'd be as president. Biden's been attacked and attacked and attacked this cycle and his lead is staying pretty much the same with those who actually plan on voting. And lots are now paying attention.

Until I see that Warren can handle those sorts of negative cycles too my support of her is extremely tentative and subject to flipping back at a moment's notice.

Obviously I as an individual don't matter much ... but I suspect that I am not too dissimilar to many others who are open to considering both of them.
  #182  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:00 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
... the current best evidence is that she cannot weather attacks well ...
You've made this assertion more than once without specifying what allegedly poor-performances in weathering attacks you mean. "The current best evidence" seems to imply a number of such performances or incidents.

If you mean 'in response to months of attacks on her for having said she had Native American heritage, she had a DNA test done'---that's one incident. And its's one that is not clearly or by consensus a failure to Weather Attacks Well. Are there instances of her lashing out, or running from the room in tears, or throwing things, or something else that would reasonably signal a failure to be able to weather attacks?

If there are other incidents that you feel support your claim, could you detail them?

Last edited by Sherrerd; 09-13-2019 at 09:02 PM.
  #183  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:31 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
The floundering over that was particularly pathetic. Her “quips” of Trump not wanting to fight a girl, also pretty sad. The way she dealt with the crowd laughing inappropriately at her story in debate two was also not reassuring of someone able to handle it if the crowd is unfriendly.

Can you point me to any times she’s been attacked and has handled it well? I want to see them!

If the only examples that exist are ones like those, and none of her responding skillfully, then that’s what current best evidence we’ve got.
  #184  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:33 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post

If you mean 'in response to months of attacks on her for having said she had Native American heritage, she had a DNA test done'---that's one incident. And its's one that is not clearly or by consensus a failure to Weather Attacks Well.
Her response was a failure in the consensus view. And it was a response she had months to prepare and used as her campaign pseudo-launch. That's an ugly miss.

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-13-2019 at 09:33 PM.
  #185  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:31 AM
neutro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 118
She loses me with all the crank up the taxes stuff.
  #186  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:35 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
As Mayor Pete very astutely wondered aloud, why can’t she trust people to make their own choices?
I think pretty much all of the candidates (even Biden and Delaney and such) are wildly deluded about the chances of getting any major health insurance reform through, and I'd much prefer to hear a lot less about the whole issue given that the primary has so little impact on it, but how many people currently have "choices" between plans?

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-14-2019 at 02:38 AM.
  #187  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:41 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
She loses me with all the crank up the taxes stuff.
Do you have a billion dollars?
  #188  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:17 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Do you have a billion dollars?
Let's be fair. A man with $999 million — not even a billion — would be stripped all the way down to $980 billion in the first year, if he reported all his wealth. Even someone with merely $53 million would have to shell out $60,000 in new tax.

(Of course the tax-collector would have to find the wealth to tax it. Metal detectors can find gold, but not diamonds or rubies. And AFAICT some valuable modern art could be hidden in a collection of kindergarterner paintings. )
  #189  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:00 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Let's be fair. A man with $999 million — not even a billion — would be stripped all the way down to $980 billion in the first year, if he reported all his wealth. Even someone with merely $53 million would have to shell out $60,000 in new tax.

(Of course the tax-collector would have to find the wealth to tax it. Metal detectors can find gold, but not diamonds or rubies. And AFAICT some valuable modern art could be hidden in a collection of kindergarterner paintings. )
Yeah, there was this very solemn, wiser-than-thou article in the Washington Post about her proposal:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaPo
But there’s another way of looking at how this tax would impact the country’s wealthiest families: The 15 largest fortunes in the country would be, on average, half their current size if the tax had been in place since 1982, according to new figures published by a pair of economists who helped Warren write her wealth tax proposal.

Instead of $97 billion, Microsoft founder Bill Gates would now have $36.4 billion, according to the figures. Rather than $44.9 billion, Walmart heiress Alice Walton would be sitting on $15 billion. Instead of $160 billion, Amazon founder (and Washington Post owner) Jeff Bezos would have $86.8 billion.

Some economists, seizing on such numbers, say Warren’s tax could do more than just make the wealthy uncomfortable: It could erase great fortunes.
I don't think even 86.8 billion dollars could buy a violin tiny enough for me to play out my sorrows for Jeff Bezos. Imagine the Walmart heiress having to survive on only $15 billion!

Christ almighty. I don't advocate the guillotine, but articles like this give me insight into 1780s France.
  #190  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:59 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,763
That looks to me like a feature, not a bug. If you can't maintain a fortune, by continuing to add something of value to the world, then you don't deserve to keep that fortune.
  #191  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:14 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,706
I would imagine that any such confiscatory tax scheme would be met with capital flight such that the purported benefits would not be realized. I doubt Alice Walton would take no action in the face of being taxed $20B.
  #192  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:19 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Yeah, there was this very solemn, wiser-than-thou article in the Washington Post about her proposal:
I don't think even 86.8 billion dollars could buy a violin tiny enough for me to play out my sorrows for Jeff Bezos. Imagine the Walmart heiress having to survive on only $15 billion!

Christ almighty. I don't advocate the guillotine, but articles like this give me insight into 1780s France.
The article exemplifies what's wrong with the current economic system and its perverse tendencies to accelerate wealth concentration. We're now 1 1/2 generations into the post-Reagan era in politics and we've fully moved from a society that had a fairly healthy, albeit flawed and wasteful, welfare system, to a culture in which we accept as normal that there is endemic hyper-inequality, and that this is just a normal consequence of healthy capitalism.

The fortunes of Gates, Walton, and Bezos could be put to better use by a system that discourages concentration of wealth and instead encourages better wages, which is one major problem that low tax systems create. It would result in a slower-growth economy, but that could be offset by an augmented welfare state.
  #193  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:21 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
She loses me with all the crank up the taxes stuff.
Cranking up the taxes is one thing; promising to take choices away when it comes to healthcare is another. Joe Biden is more in tune with the rest of the country than Sanders and Warren: people want their insurance options improved, not removed. That's ultimately the issue that would torpedo either Warren or Sanders in a race against Trump. The irony is that democrats would lose on an issue that should help them: healthcare. They would lose because they're misreading the public mandate.
  #194  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:33 AM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I would imagine that any such confiscatory tax scheme would be met with capital flight such that the purported benefits would not be realized. I doubt Alice Walton would take no action in the face of being taxed $20B.
She's welcome to leave. So long as she's fine with Wal-Mart not being allowed to do business in the United States until she pays what she owes.
  #195  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:04 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
She's welcome to leave. So long as she's fine with Wal-Mart not being allowed to do business in the United States until she pays what she owes.
Something like that. It's not like capital flight is an unheard-of-concept that Warren would be shocked to encounter. Her plan has anti-avoidance measures:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren's website
The proposal also includes strong anti-evasion measures, including but not limited to:

a significant increase in the IRS enforcement budget;

a minimum audit rate for taxpayers subject to the Ultra-Millionaire Tax;

a 40% “exit tax” on the net worth above $50 million of any U.S. citizen who renounces their citizenship; and systematic third-party reporting that builds on existing tax information exchange agreements adopted after the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.
In general, if you find a trivial objection to a Warren plan, it's likely that the objection is already answered. Sure, people will search for a way to avoid this tax, just like people try to avoid all taxes. That doesn't mean it's a bad proposal. It just means that enforcement needs to be part of the proposal.

Edit: also, to be clear, Alice Walton's $20B tax burden would've been paid over the past 37 years (and, to be ultra-pedantic, not all of that wealth shrinkage would've been directly paid to the IRS). It's not like she'd take that as an immediate hit.

My violin is shrinking as I type.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 09-14-2019 at 12:07 PM.
  #196  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:16 PM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,843
Not to mention that her family would have made a lot less money if we weren't subsidizing them through welfare benefits to Wal-Mart employees to the tune of 7.8 billion dollars a year.

If that violin gets any smaller, it's gonna pop right out of existence.
  #197  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:59 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
It’s not constitutional. Just raise income taxes on the wealthy along the lines of what AOC proposes.
  #198  
Old 09-14-2019, 03:25 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It’s not constitutional.
No all agree with that.

https://www.latimes.com/business/hil...125-story.html
Quote:
The notion that a wealth tax is unconstitutional derives from a provision of the Constitution prohibiting “direct” taxation unless it’s “apportioned among the states.” That’s generally taken to mean that the amount raised from each state must be proportionate to its population.
Quote:
But two legal scholars say this constitutional interpretation is wrong. They’re Dawn Johnsen of Indiana University and Walter Dellinger, a former U.S. solicitor general, of Duke University. Their analysis appeared last year, and is regarded as the leading work on the issue, though their position isn’t unanimously held. (Thanks to Bruce Bartlett for bringing it to my attention.)

Johnsen and Dellinger dismiss the constitutionality issue as “conventional wisdom” that is casually repeated but is the product of “faulty constitutional understanding.” It’s partially the result of a Supreme Court ruling in 1895 known as Pollock that was narrowly — and they say wrongly — decided, and that has been undermined by a string of subsequent Supreme Court decisions.

It’s also generally disdained by legal authorities. Among them is Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School, who wrote in 1999 that before Pollock, the court used a very narrow definition of “direct tax,” and has returned to that narrow view since. As a unanimous court declared in 1983, he noted, “Congress’ power to tax is virtually without limitation.”

The “direct tax” language in the Constitution, Johnsen and Dellinger observe, was murky even to the drafters. The Constitution refers explicitly only to a “capitation” or head tax, which is levied on each individual and thus can be easily apportioned by population. The authors assert that the clause wasn’t the product of “any principled decision to limit Congress’s authority to tax income, property, or wealth.”

In any event, the court rejected Pollock only a few years later, by upholding an estate tax and a gift tax — that is, a tax on net worth. After the 16th Amendment, which declared an income tax constitutional, was ratified in 1913 as a response to Pollock, discussions of the constitutionality of taxes other than the head tax dropped off the Supreme Court docket.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/t...onstitutional/
Quote:
In any case, Pollock was bad history when it was decided, and it quickly became a pariah and shrank in importance. Justice Harlan described Pollock at the time as the “decision [that] will become as hateful with the American people as the Dred Scott case.”61 Looking back, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. judged that Pollock was an inappropriate overreaction to the populist William Jennings Bryan, a vague terror that was translated into “doctrine that had no place in the Constitution.”62 Almost immediately the Supreme Court began retreating from what it later called its “mistaken theory” in Pollock,63 by expanding the definition of “excise tax” elastically to include taxes that were obvious assaults on wealth, including the estate tax,64 a corporate gross receipts tax,65 the corporate income tax,66 and a tax on Chicago Board of Trade commodity transactions.67 The elastic expansion of “excise” to avoid apportionment of the tax was solely a tool to confine Pollock to its facts because the original 1787 meaning of “excise” meant only a tax on whiskey68 and other sins.69 The Sixteenth Amendment, passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states, allowed a tax on income without apportionment, putting the last nail in Pollock’s coffin.

The Founders believed in the wealth tax. Apportionment was designed to reach wealth by taxing states according to a proxy for relative wealth, using the best measurement of wealth that was then available. To turn a requirement designed to make it easier to tax wealth into a rule exempting wealth from taxation is to turn the Founders’ meaning upside down. The progressive idea of a wealth tax, like the estate tax, is clearly constitutional. ■
  #199  
Old 09-14-2019, 04:02 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I would imagine that any such confiscatory tax scheme would be met with capital flight such that the purported benefits would not be realized. I doubt Alice Walton would take no action in the face of being taxed $20B.
It's not anything remotely close to that though. That excerpt was calculating smaller fortunes being amassed over a 36 year period with the Warren tax, not how much their current fortunes would be taxed.
  #200  
Old 09-14-2019, 04:38 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Her position on nuclear is actively harmful to the goal of avoiding catastrophic climate change. (And that is from someone who is not a complete fan.)
She's adopted the Inslee plan. So the Inslee plan is anti-nuke? Because it's gotten rave reviews from people like David Roberts at Vox who says we absolutely need nuclear to make it work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The way she dealt with the crowd laughing inappropriately at her story in debate two was also not reassuring of someone able to handle it if the crowd is unfriendly.
There was plenty of debate commentary after that debate, and I didn't see a single mention of this. Can you link to the video and tell me what time this happens?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017