So benefit cuts are not anti- whoever’s benefit is getting cut?
Warren:
Her campaign is largely based around the idea that the 2008 financial collapse was caused primarily by deregulation rather than the boom-bust cycle; she has outlined and proposed a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act as a solution.
*The devil is in the details - I don’t know what a “21st centery Glass-Steagall Act” would look like. I also don’t know anyone who says the 2008 collapse is caused by the normal business cycle. It was caused by the push to give mortgages to people who didn’t qualify, and underestimating the risk of MBS. But more regulation isn’t going to prevent the next crash, which is coming from entitlement ballooning. Therefore, advantage Cruz here. *
Is a strong proponent of gun control; supports rigorous background screenings and a ban on extended magazine long rifles weapons.
See above. Gun control is a losing proposition for Dems, and the stuff about screenings and extended magazine weapons sounds like the “gun show loophole” (which doesn’t exist) or the assault weapons ban, which boils down to “ban weapons that look scary” which isn’t going to do any good.
Favors the DREAM act as one of many positive steps towards immigration reform.
Obama’s recent executive order has poisoned the well on debates on illegal immigration. Warren would have to spend some time defending it, which will cost her votes, disavow it, which will cost her votes from her side, or waffle.
Favors subsidizing clean energy alternatives rather than what she terms “Big Oil”. In campaign speeches, she’s not been clear on how fast this shift would occur, or how high a priority it would be.
Here she suffers from the same problem Cruz does on global warming. The science doesn’t back her up. Solar and wind and other “clean” energy sources are not economically viable except in some niche circumstances, and the harder she pushes nuclear (which is currently the only viable option) the more she will lose the environmental extremists. As you say, perhaps she doesn’t mean it, and will merely throw more money at it and hope for the best.
Is staunchly pro-choice. Warren has stated she is in favor of churches providing birth control, and that she would not appoint a Supreme Court Justice who was pro-life.
This also is not all that extreme. No Democrat is ever going to nominate a Justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade. I am not clear on what it means for churches providing birth control. If she means forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or provide birth control, then that is pretty extreme. Most people are less absolutist than Dems on the subject of abortion. And if she is pro-choice, then ISTM that forcing people on the question is pretty far from pro-choice.
Regards,
Shodan
I believe the point is that not all taxpayers are rabid jackals who froth at the mouth every time any of their taxes go up for any reason. Want to fix SS? Keep the ceiling on benefits, lose the ceiling on contributions. Problem solved.
That’s one fix, but it barely fixes the problem and in some analyses, doesn’t quite cut it. But even assuming it does, it’s spent.
If you want to raise benefits, there’s no way around increasing the payroll tax on all workers. The payroll tax is certainly high enough. I wouldn’t call a payroll tax increase a pro-working class move.
You have to be specific about the 3rd party candidate to answer. Leaving that aside, Warren is not as far from the center as Cruz, but the other side will consider her as such. Between just those two with the electoral advantage the Republicans have it could be Cruz. I’ll let you know my new nationality if that happens.
One is as extremely interventionist as the other is extremely laissez-faire.
They both suck, and Cruz would win because in a draw the country leans Republican.
This is America, we have “extreme politics” like croquet is “extreme sports.”
What makes you think that?
Cite?
Don’t most working people have relatives on Social Security?
Not presidentially.
I picked Warren. The GOP can’t gerrymander states. And despite putting all their efforts into voter suppression, they can’t eliminate enough millions of people to swing a presidential election. Cruz may have more a name recognition, but he’s crazy, and as we’ve see in the past few elections, the more voters get to know a Republican nominee, the less they like him, and the more likely that guy’s going to say something crazy
Warren is smart and bookish. She may be a bit boring, but nothing she says is that unreasonable. Her specialties including more regulation for big banks and making sure Wall Street plays by the same rules the rest of us do. Those are populists platforms, anyone outside the 1% is going to feel like she is on their side.
And if they want to give them more money, there are more efficient ways for them to do so than to have it taken out of their paycheck and passed through DC first.
This is how politically polarized America has become. This is how each side sees the other and itself. We’re simply common-sensible, what We have to say is so obvious We shouldn’t need to say it; and They’re not just wrong, They’re crazy!
If not for SS, a lot of people would have their elderly parents and/or grandparents in their house. SS has given many elderly the freedom to live on their own and freed their children from caring for them. The Republicans may pine for the days of yore when the family was the safety net, but it isn’t what the country wants.
But it’s also true. Ted Cruz is one crazy motherfucker.
I agree. Utterly toxic for democrats.
However, if one of the extreme positions taken by Cruz includes axing federal departments like education, the interior and energy, the perhaps Warren pulls it out.
Oh come on. Those people who are gun enthusiasts have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in their lives. What are they going to do, cast double votes against Warren? Would they vote for Hillary? Did they vote for Obama? I sincerely doubt it. Democrats have already lost the gun voters. We can’t lose them again.
SS in its current form already does that. Raising benefits just allows elderly to live a little better and working families to live a little worse.
I was actually going easy on Warren by saying she’s merely anti-taxpayer. Both of these initiatives would reduce working class income to make things a little easier for the youngest and the oldest. I could have accused her of being anti-working class.
But prove me wrong. Name me something she supports which would increase working class incomes. And no, minimum wage doesn’t count, neither does supporting unions. Both of those only affect a small minority of workers.
Getting rid of federal departments is a pretty esoteric issue. Axing those departments would only end some of their programs, most would end up in other departments. The primary rationale for ending those departments is that the majority of what they do is not essential. Plus it can be argued that the federal bureaucracy has become too big and unaccountable and unmanageable by elected officials as a result. Getting rid of nonessential departments and merging the small amount of essential things they do into other departments is good policy.
For example, most of us agree that the federal government should back student loans. But should the feds decide what school lunch standards are to be? Given how unpopular Michelle Obama’s “Starve the kids” initiative has been, I think a good case can be made to take this power away from the feds.
A lot of federal departments weren’t created for legitimate policy reasons, but for political reasons, rather recently, to signal that the government cares about the issue enough to create a Cabinet-level official to oversee it. It was nonsense then, and it’s still nonsense given what these departments actually do and what they spend money on.
Minimum wage DOES count. Those who would get a higher minimum wage would spend it- improving not only their own lives but those who work at the businesses that would see the influx of cash. Union support DOES count. Unions are the reason you have health insurance and were responsible for the creation of the middle class in the first place. Support for extending unemployment counts as well. People receiving unemployment spend it, creating a positive ripple throughout the economy to the benefit of the working class. Support for infrastructure programs counts as well, creating lots of well-paying jobs.