The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Smoove_B »

Grifman wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 11:59 am Democrats should be campaigning on how Republicans want to take away the aspects of Obamacare that benefit everyone.
As a new convert, I'll give you some unsolicited advice - stop calling it Obamacare. :wink:
As Biden started to fade (my first choice), I was starting to shift to Warren because I like some of her other proposals regarding corporate governance, but her health care plan is a non-starter.
I would vote for Taxy McTaxerson (D) than any (R) put on a ballot. It's unfortunate, but voting (R) or not voting isn't an option anymore.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43493
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Blackhawk »

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:18 pm I would vote for Taxy McTaxerson (D) than any (R) put on a ballot. It's unfortunate, but voting (R) or not voting isn't an option anymore.
...in which Smoove sums up early 21st century political philosophy.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Smoove_B »

I really don't like it at all because it forces me to be a party-line voter on everything. But there's zero chance - zero - I'll vote (R) anytime soon, maybe ever again in my lifetime.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Grifman »

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:18 pm
Grifman wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 11:59 am Democrats should be campaigning on how Republicans
As Biden started to fade (my first choice), I was starting to shift to Warren because I like some of her other proposals regarding corporate governance, but her health care plan is a non-starter.
I would vote for Taxy McTaxerson (D) than any (R) put on a ballot. It's unfortunate, but voting (R) or not voting isn't an option anymore.
I wasn't saying I'd vote for Trump - that's never going to happen - it was meant in comparison with other Democratic candidates. She moved down the list with her health care plan.
Last edited by Grifman on Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Holman »

Given the pushback, I won't be surprised if Warren emerges with a step-by-step approach, with the first step being something more mixed than MfA (and likely in practice to be the only step realizable for a long time).
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Kraken »

Holman wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:54 pm Given the pushback, I won't be surprised if Warren emerges with a step-by-step approach, with the first step being something more mixed than MfA (and likely in practice to be the only step realizable for a long time).

This is pretty much a given. Her next big policy release will be her phase-in plan. I expect that the first step will be adding a public option to the ACA, and making that option more desirable than private insurance. Before you end everyone's existing coverage, you have to demonstrate that yours is better.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Grifman »

Holman wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:54 pm Given the pushback, I won't be surprised if Warren emerges with a step-by-step approach, with the first step being something more mixed than MfA (and likely in practice to be the only step realizable for a long time).
Well, her current plan would never pass a Republican led Senate, and might not even pass a Democratic House or Senate. It would only take a few Democrats in opposition, along with Republicans to kill this plan.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Smoove_B »

Grifman wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 2:54 pmI wasn't saying I'd vote for Trump - that's never going to happen - it was meant in comparison with other Democratic candidates. She moved down the list with her health care plan.
I honestly don't know that there's going to be much of a choice. I fear the (D) options are about to take another haircut and the field is going to narrow. As unfortunate as her plan offering seems to be, I fear she's still Top 3, perhaps Top 2.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Grifman »

My fear is that the Democrats are moving too far left. The US has, at least for most of my lifetime, been a center to center right country. Far left candidates just don't win. Maybe the country is moving that way with the next generation but I don't think we are there yet. I think there are Republicans who would support a more centrist Democrat, but who are going to either sit out things or hold their nose and vote Trump because of some of the more extreme things Democrats are talking about. A more centrist candidate would wipe the floor with Trump. In some of the debates, the Dems seem to be trying to "outleft" each other, and I don't think that's a winning move. It may rally the true believers who vote in the primaries but they don't win elections. Obama and Clinton look like conservatives compared to some of these candidates.

I just don't think I could take another four years of Trump.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30126
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by YellowKing »

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I mean, I get it. Politics in this country are a wildly out of control pendulum, and Trump is the perfect disaster to trigger a hard left over-correction. Much as Trump was an over-correction to 8 years of Obama. With Trump's terrible approval ratings, it probably seems like a golden opportunity for the Dems to sneak in someone further left than ever before.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Isgrimnur »

It’s primary season. They have to compete for the imprimatur of the party first, then moderate back to the center for the general.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Defiant »

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Kraken »

The Globe has an interesting analysis of how Warren went from nowhere to the top -- she's had a plan from the beginning, and she's stuck to it.
Warren has been surging for months in early state polls, regularly attracts crowds in the thousands, and, with her steady stream of policy proposals, has dominated the substance of the campaign debate. It can be hard to recall that, for four long months after she jumped into the Democratic primary, she struggled to break out, overshadowed by less experienced rivals and written off for her early mistakes.

Still, she stayed the course, and her success so far has proved no accident. It turns out she had a plan for that, too. And stuck to it.
...
The story of Warren’s remarkable rise in the race is grounded in how much she and her team stuck to that original plan of building a campaign around a substantive policy vision, and resisted calls from the outside to shake up her staff or strategy even when facing intense criticism. In fact, many of the decisions that analysts now credit with boosting her candidacy — including staying after events to take photos with every voter who wants one, going big on staffing in the four early voting states, and focusing intensely on policy — were made before she even entered the race.
...
Warren’s top aides had long viewed eschewing fund-raisers as a cornerstone of their strategy because it gave Warren more time to interact with voters and travel the country. The campaign hadn’t taken steps to build a finance team or schedule any fund-raisers in their first weeks in the race, but the final call to stick to grass-roots-only money didn’t come until a few weeks later, leading to the departure of her longtime finance director.

Now, the no-big-money pledge serves as a key contrast between Warren and Biden, whose fund-raising has lagged even as he regularly courts wealthy donors on the coasts. And it hasn’t left Warren short on cash for her campaign. She’s become one of the top fund-raisers in the field, pulling in nearly $25 million last quarter.
User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 17424
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by pr0ner »

Kurth wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:40 am
And richer households would have to pay their capital gains taxes on a “mark-to-market” basis—meaning that if their stock portfolios went up in value during the year, they would owe taxes on the increase, even if they didn’t actually sell any shares.
:roll:

That’s just great. That’s exactly the kind of BS I was afraid we’d see from Elizabeth Warren.

Could someone please explain to me why this isn’t a terrible idea?
So if my investments go down for a calendar year, do I get to write that off as a loss? Or would I be screwed?

At any rate, I feel like a mark to market tax would definitely make the stock market contract.
Hodor.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Smoove_B »

pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:56 pmSo if my investments go down for a calendar year, do I get to write that off as a loss? Or would I be screwed?
If you can claim gambling losses (as you're required to report wins), why not? The stock market is just fancy gambling so it should be treated the same. :D
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Grifman »

pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:56 pm
Kurth wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:40 am
And richer households would have to pay their capital gains taxes on a “mark-to-market” basis—meaning that if their stock portfolios went up in value during the year, they would owe taxes on the increase, even if they didn’t actually sell any shares.
:roll:

That’s just great. That’s exactly the kind of BS I was afraid we’d see from Elizabeth Warren.

Could someone please explain to me why this isn’t a terrible idea?
So if my investments go down for a calendar year, do I get to write that off as a loss? Or would I be screwed?

At any rate, I feel like a mark to market tax would definitely make the stock market contract.
Now you are limited to only $3,000 in capital losses per year if I remember correctly. So unless changed, that wouldn't do you much good.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 17424
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by pr0ner »

Grifman wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 2:20 pm
pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:56 pm
Kurth wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:40 am
And richer households would have to pay their capital gains taxes on a “mark-to-market” basis—meaning that if their stock portfolios went up in value during the year, they would owe taxes on the increase, even if they didn’t actually sell any shares.
:roll:

That’s just great. That’s exactly the kind of BS I was afraid we’d see from Elizabeth Warren.

Could someone please explain to me why this isn’t a terrible idea?
So if my investments go down for a calendar year, do I get to write that off as a loss? Or would I be screwed?

At any rate, I feel like a mark to market tax would definitely make the stock market contract.
Now you are limited to only $3,000 in capital losses per year if I remember correctly. So unless changed, that wouldn't do you much good.
Capital losses can be carried over year to year though.
Hodor.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by noxiousdog »

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:58 pm
pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:56 pmSo if my investments go down for a calendar year, do I get to write that off as a loss? Or would I be screwed?
If you can claim gambling losses (as you're required to report wins), why not? The stock market is just fancy gambling so it should be treated the same. :D
You can't claim gambling losses except to counter gambling gains.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Smoove_B »

That's kinda what I said (but not nearly as clear). If you're going to be required to report annual stock market gains, you should also gain credit for losses. Fair is fair.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by El Guapo »

Wouldn't it be easier / simpler / better to just raise the capital gains tax, rather than figuring out this mark to market tax business?
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Kurth »

Grifman wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:25 am My fear is that the Democrats are moving too far left. The US has, at least for most of my lifetime, been a center to center right country. Far left candidates just don't win. Maybe the country is moving that way with the next generation but I don't think we are there yet. I think there are Republicans who would support a more centrist Democrat, but who are going to either sit out things or hold their nose and vote Trump because of some of the more extreme things Democrats are talking about. A more centrist candidate would wipe the floor with Trump. In some of the debates, the Dems seem to be trying to "outleft" each other, and I don't think that's a winning move. It may rally the true believers who vote in the primaries but they don't win elections. Obama and Clinton look like conservatives compared to some of these candidates.

I just don't think I could take another four years of Trump.
Exactly this. The parties continue to get pushed to the fringes.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16434
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Zarathud »

El Guapo wrote:Wouldn't it be easier / simpler / better to just raise the capital gains tax, rather than figuring out this mark to market tax business?
Yes. A wealth tax is horribly inefficient, and more difficult to administer than an estate tax.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Grifman »

Pelosi has the same concerns I have:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... rong-track
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is issuing a pointed message to Democrats running for president in 2020: Those liberal ideas that fire up the party’s base are a big loser when it comes to beating President Donald Trump.

Proposals pushed by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders like Medicare for All and a wealth tax play well in liberal enclaves like her own district in San Francisco but won’t sell in the Midwestern states that sent Trump to the White House in 2016, she said.

“What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,” Pelosi said at a roundtable of Bloomberg News reporters and editors on Friday. “What works in Michigan works in San Francisco — talking about workers’ rights and sharing prosperity.”
There may be a time for the Democrats to go all in on the "progressive agenda" and take a chance of failing, but this is not the time. The stakes are just far too great. Unfortunately, I believe that horse has left the barn. It's going to be the progressive agenda vs. Trump, and I am afraid Trump will come out on top.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Grifman »

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Holman »

Kurth wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:02 am
Grifman wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:25 am My fear is that the Democrats are moving too far left. The US has, at least for most of my lifetime, been a center to center right country. Far left candidates just don't win. Maybe the country is moving that way with the next generation but I don't think we are there yet. I think there are Republicans who would support a more centrist Democrat, but who are going to either sit out things or hold their nose and vote Trump because of some of the more extreme things Democrats are talking about. A more centrist candidate would wipe the floor with Trump. In some of the debates, the Dems seem to be trying to "outleft" each other, and I don't think that's a winning move. It may rally the true believers who vote in the primaries but they don't win elections. Obama and Clinton look like conservatives compared to some of these candidates.

I just don't think I could take another four years of Trump.
Exactly this. The parties continue to get pushed to the fringes.
A lot of what now looks like the leftward fringe, at least economically, would have seemed like bipartisan centrism 60 years ago.

The GOP since Reagan has swerved the country hard to the Right.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Grifman wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:25 am My fear is that the Democrats are moving too far left. The US has, at least for most of my lifetime, been a center to center right country. Far left candidates just don't win. Maybe the country is moving that way with the next generation but I don't think we are there yet. I think there are Republicans who would support a more centrist Democrat, but who are going to either sit out things or hold their nose and vote Trump because of some of the more extreme things Democrats are talking about. A more centrist candidate would wipe the floor with Trump. In some of the debates, the Dems seem to be trying to "outleft" each other, and I don't think that's a winning move. It may rally the true believers who vote in the primaries but they don't win elections. Obama and Clinton look like conservatives compared to some of these candidates.

I just don't think I could take another four years of Trump.
The DNC is stuck in the last century. This MMA style round robin format is just making the candidates more toxic. Their insistence on out-lefting each other is cannibalism.

They should have presented a limited field (doesn't matter who, but say the 3 or 4 front runners) and managed the messaging. I know this goes against everything I have wanted in the past, where I have bemoaned being presented with 2 preordained turds every 4th November, but this is 2020 and the stakes are different. Hell, it is exactly why they lost last time, forcing Hillary on us. But it is what they need to do now.


These competing shows of liberal cred are unnecessary for the faithful and only serve to alienate anyone else. The stakes are too high for fucking around. The GOP is playing dirty pool in a literal government takeover and the DNC is running a goddamn beauty pageant.


In another timeline finding the next Obama would be a lovely goal. Unfortunately we're in timeline shit goblin and Change is a distant second to simply not losing the nation to a gang of venal sociopaths.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Kurth »

Holman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:01 am
Kurth wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:02 am
Grifman wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:25 am My fear is that the Democrats are moving too far left. The US has, at least for most of my lifetime, been a center to center right country. Far left candidates just don't win. Maybe the country is moving that way with the next generation but I don't think we are there yet. I think there are Republicans who would support a more centrist Democrat, but who are going to either sit out things or hold their nose and vote Trump because of some of the more extreme things Democrats are talking about. A more centrist candidate would wipe the floor with Trump. In some of the debates, the Dems seem to be trying to "outleft" each other, and I don't think that's a winning move. It may rally the true believers who vote in the primaries but they don't win elections. Obama and Clinton look like conservatives compared to some of these candidates.

I just don't think I could take another four years of Trump.
Exactly this. The parties continue to get pushed to the fringes.
A lot of what now looks like the leftward fringe, at least economically, would have seemed like bipartisan centrism 60 years ago.

The GOP since Reagan has swerved the country hard to the Right.
I'm not sure I agree with this. What current lefty fringe proposals do you think were considered bipartisan centrism in the 1950s-1960s?

A few of the current proposals from the left that I'm thinking of include:
- Taxation plans that include a new top tax rate at 70% and things like Warren's "mark to market" assessment on stock investments
- Going all in on government run health care
- Free college tuition
- Painting a target on our leading tech companies and threatening to break them up
- Several of the more out there aspects of the Green New Deal

What I hear from the "fringe" left these days is an unending howl about what they all "deserve" and a fundamental distrust of capitalism, free markets, and liberal individualism. I could be full of it, but my general understanding is that this is a shift.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Holman »

Kurth wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:50 am I'm not sure I agree with this. What current lefty fringe proposals do you think were considered bipartisan centrism in the 1950s-1960s?

A few of the current proposals from the left that I'm thinking of include:
- Taxation plans that include a new top tax rate at 70% and things like Warren's "mark to market" assessment on stock investments
- Going all in on government run health care
- Free college tuition
- Painting a target on our leading tech companies and threatening to break them up
- Several of the more out there aspects of the Green New Deal

What I hear from the "fringe" left these days is an unending howl about what they all "deserve" and a fundamental distrust of capitalism, free markets, and liberal individualism. I could be full of it, but my general understanding is that this is a shift.
It's not that difficult to see all of these items as more center-left than far-left.

At one point in the 1950s, the top federal tax rate was 92 percent.
Health care costs are literally killing people. When Medicare was introduced in the 1950s it was also decried as "socialist dictatorship."
College degrees are as necessary now as high school degrees used to be.
Robust anti-trust policing was a thing until it wasn't. The Tech companies have been fortunate in its absence.
The Green New Deal is (or should be) a Marshall Plan and an Apollo program for a crisis literally threatening civilization itself.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by El Guapo »

Kurth wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:50 am
Holman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:01 am
Kurth wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:02 am
Grifman wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:25 am My fear is that the Democrats are moving too far left. The US has, at least for most of my lifetime, been a center to center right country. Far left candidates just don't win. Maybe the country is moving that way with the next generation but I don't think we are there yet. I think there are Republicans who would support a more centrist Democrat, but who are going to either sit out things or hold their nose and vote Trump because of some of the more extreme things Democrats are talking about. A more centrist candidate would wipe the floor with Trump. In some of the debates, the Dems seem to be trying to "outleft" each other, and I don't think that's a winning move. It may rally the true believers who vote in the primaries but they don't win elections. Obama and Clinton look like conservatives compared to some of these candidates.

I just don't think I could take another four years of Trump.
Exactly this. The parties continue to get pushed to the fringes.
A lot of what now looks like the leftward fringe, at least economically, would have seemed like bipartisan centrism 60 years ago.

The GOP since Reagan has swerved the country hard to the Right.
I'm not sure I agree with this. What current lefty fringe proposals do you think were considered bipartisan centrism in the 1950s-1960s?

A few of the current proposals from the left that I'm thinking of include:
- Taxation plans that include a new top tax rate at 70% and things like Warren's "mark to market" assessment on stock investments
- Going all in on government run health care
- Free college tuition
- Painting a target on our leading tech companies and threatening to break them up
- Several of the more out there aspects of the Green New Deal

What I hear from the "fringe" left these days is an unending howl about what they all "deserve" and a fundamental distrust of capitalism, free markets, and liberal individualism. I could be full of it, but my general understanding is that this is a shift.
The top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was 91%.

A single payer healthcare plan was a main Democratic proposal (from Ted Kennedy) in the 1960s / 1970s). There was significant debate between that on the left and Nixon's ACA-like bill on the right.

I don't know as much about the history of free college tuition. But on the fourth point, antitrust used to be way, way more aggressive than it is now (and many leading companies have been broken up, from Standard Oil and train trusts to AT&T.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Grifman »

Holman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:05 pm
It's not that difficult to see all of these items as more center-left than far-left.

At one point in the 1950s, the top federal tax rate was 92 percent.
Health care costs are literally killing people. When Medicare was introduced in the 1950s it was also decried as "socialist dictatorship."
College degrees are as necessary now as high school degrees used to be.
Robust anti-trust policing was a thing until it wasn't. The Tech companies have been fortunate in its absence.
The Green New Deal is (or should be) a Marshall Plan and an Apollo program for a crisis literally threatening civilization itself.
Maybe in your mind, but that's not how the American public sees it, which is all that matters. Your view is a distinct minority, in fact, I'm not aware of anyone else that holds to this view.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Ralph-Wiggum
Posts: 17449
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:51 am

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Ralph-Wiggum »

Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:35 pm
Holman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:05 pm
It's not that difficult to see all of these items as more center-left than far-left.

At one point in the 1950s, the top federal tax rate was 92 percent.
Health care costs are literally killing people. When Medicare was introduced in the 1950s it was also decried as "socialist dictatorship."
College degrees are as necessary now as high school degrees used to be.
Robust anti-trust policing was a thing until it wasn't. The Tech companies have been fortunate in its absence.
The Green New Deal is (or should be) a Marshall Plan and an Apollo program for a crisis literally threatening civilization itself.
Maybe in your mind, but that's not how the American public sees it, which is all that matters. Your view is a distinct minority, in fact, I'm not aware of anyone else that holds to this view.
A wealth tax, Medicare-For-All, and free college tuition all have over 50% support in recent polls (one example). Is it still considered far left if a majority of the country supports it?
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Grifman »

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:38 pm
Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:35 pm
Holman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:05 pm
It's not that difficult to see all of these items as more center-left than far-left.

At one point in the 1950s, the top federal tax rate was 92 percent.
Health care costs are literally killing people. When Medicare was introduced in the 1950s it was also decried as "socialist dictatorship."
College degrees are as necessary now as high school degrees used to be.
Robust anti-trust policing was a thing until it wasn't. The Tech companies have been fortunate in its absence.
The Green New Deal is (or should be) a Marshall Plan and an Apollo program for a crisis literally threatening civilization itself.
Maybe in your mind, but that's not how the American public sees it, which is all that matters. Your view is a distinct minority, in fact, I'm not aware of anyone else that holds to this view.
A wealth tax, Medicare-For-All, and free college tuition all have over 50% support in recent polls (one example). Is it still considered far left if a majority of the country supports it?
The Republicans haven't started their attack ads yet. I've already read that Republican media/ad people are already preparing ads saying that the Democrats want to take away your private insurance and replace it with government insurance. That's going to play very well in Peoria (and other places).
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Kraken »

Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:18 pm
Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:38 pm
Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:35 pm
Holman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:05 pm
It's not that difficult to see all of these items as more center-left than far-left.

At one point in the 1950s, the top federal tax rate was 92 percent.
Health care costs are literally killing people. When Medicare was introduced in the 1950s it was also decried as "socialist dictatorship."
College degrees are as necessary now as high school degrees used to be.
Robust anti-trust policing was a thing until it wasn't. The Tech companies have been fortunate in its absence.
The Green New Deal is (or should be) a Marshall Plan and an Apollo program for a crisis literally threatening civilization itself.
Maybe in your mind, but that's not how the American public sees it, which is all that matters. Your view is a distinct minority, in fact, I'm not aware of anyone else that holds to this view.
A wealth tax, Medicare-For-All, and free college tuition all have over 50% support in recent polls (one example). Is it still considered far left if a majority of the country supports it?
The Republicans haven't started their attack ads yet. I've already read that Republican media/ad people are already preparing ads saying that the Democrats want to take away your private insurance and replace it with government insurance. That's going to play very well in Peoria (and other places).
...and your government insurance will have no premiums, deductibles, copays, or excluded coverages. BAM!
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Grifman »

I'll also note that the Times poll I noted above shows that 2/3 of the voters that voted Democrats into seats formerly held by Republicans in Trump states now plan to go back to Trump in 2020. That's terrible news for the Democrats.

On a side note, why is Warren so hyped on Medicare for all? It just makes no sense even from a policy standpoint. A much better idea is to shore up Obamacare and include a public option for your insurance choices. That way you roll it out incrementally, let people choose (which is usually good) and you can look at the results and see what works and what doesn't work. That seems like a much smarter way to do it than all at once (which is unlikely anyway because the votes aren't there for wholesale change).
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:23 pm I'll also note that the Times poll I noted above shows that 2/3 of the voters that voted Democrats into seats formerly held by Republicans in Trump states now plan to go back to Trump in 2020. That's terrible news for the Democrats.

On a side note, why is Warren so hyped on Medicare for all? It just makes no sense even from a policy standpoint. A much better idea is to shore up Obamacare and include a public option for your insurance choices. That way you roll it out incrementally, let people choose (which is usually good) and you can look at the results and see what works and what doesn't work. That seems like a much smarter way to do it than all at once (which is unlikely anyway because the votes aren't there for wholesale change).
Some campaign advisor probably advised it as a needed differentiator.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Kraken »

Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:23 pm On a side note, why is Warren so hyped on Medicare for all? It just makes no sense even from a policy standpoint. A much better idea is to shore up Obamacare and include a public option for your insurance choices. That way you roll it out incrementally, let people choose (which is usually good) and you can look at the results and see what works and what doesn't work. That seems like a much smarter way to do it than all at once (which is unlikely anyway because the votes aren't there for wholesale change).
It has to be universal to achieve the promised savings. If it starts out as the go-to for the old, the poor, and the sick, while the young and healthy stay on their employer plans, it will fail.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by El Guapo »

Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:18 pm
Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:38 pm
Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:35 pm
Holman wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:05 pm
It's not that difficult to see all of these items as more center-left than far-left.

At one point in the 1950s, the top federal tax rate was 92 percent.
Health care costs are literally killing people. When Medicare was introduced in the 1950s it was also decried as "socialist dictatorship."
College degrees are as necessary now as high school degrees used to be.
Robust anti-trust policing was a thing until it wasn't. The Tech companies have been fortunate in its absence.
The Green New Deal is (or should be) a Marshall Plan and an Apollo program for a crisis literally threatening civilization itself.
Maybe in your mind, but that's not how the American public sees it, which is all that matters. Your view is a distinct minority, in fact, I'm not aware of anyone else that holds to this view.
A wealth tax, Medicare-For-All, and free college tuition all have over 50% support in recent polls (one example). Is it still considered far left if a majority of the country supports it?
The Republicans haven't started their attack ads yet. I've already read that Republican media/ad people are already preparing ads saying that the Democrats want to take away your private insurance and replace it with government insurance. That's going to play very well in Peoria (and other places).
Also polling on MFA depends a *lot* on what you're asking about. Just asking about "Medicare For All" without details, support is great. When you ask, say, "Would you support a Medicare For All plan that abolishes private insurance?" support drops *significantly* (to well below 50%).
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Defiant »

Also, support for MFA has already dropped about 20% over the past year before those attack ads have started.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30126
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by YellowKing »

Also, being an IT guy, every time I see MFA I read "multi-factor authentication." :D
Jeff V
Posts: 36414
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: The Elizabeth Warren Sideshow

Post by Jeff V »

You don't need to abolish private insurance, that will largely happen organically if a far cheaper MFA dominates the market and insurance companies can't compete and instead have to jack their rates even higher to support their own bloated infrastructure. Eventually the scales will balance, the super rich can maintain their super expensive health insurance if they desire, and everyone else will have MFA.

MFA needs to be functional out of the chute, though, growing pains would derail political support within a 2-year congressional cycle.
Black Lives Matter
Post Reply