Elizabeth Warren 2020 Megathread v2 (pg 35 - Emily List support)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Long post about Warren's populist rhetoric

ok boomer

Devastating.  The heroic maroon avatar strikes again.  How will the anti-populists ever recover?

Buddy, you're in meltdown over the fact that the Democratic Party is finally growing a spine and standing for something other than "we're less bad than the other guys". If you think having a Democratic Party with a backbone is the worst thing that could happen to anything ever, you've not been paying attention to the world.

This isn't Chapo Trap House, you can't just win an argument by labeling your opponent as "spineless" or "having a meltdown" or "not paying attention" whatever other insult you think up.

Pretty typical of socialists to ignore the actual argument and just spam insults.  Reminds me of Trump.

Okay, I'll bite.

The argument for a wealth tax is that enormous private fortunes represent a public menace in terms of the undue amount of influence they give the people who hold them over our economy and our society. If billionaires were all Scrooge McDuck benignly swimming in pools of gold bullion or Bruce Wayne inventing sci-fi technology to use to beat up street toughs, I don't think people would care about "soaking" them nearly as much; however, as things actually are, these are people whose inordinate levels of socioeconomic power are legitimate subjects of the same sort of critique as excessive government power.

A) What does this have to do with my original post?

B) If having too much wealth gives you too much power, shouldn't we then fix the levers of power so they can't be pulled by wealth alone?

Is the wealth tax ultimately just you guys taking all of Bloomberg's money because repealing Citizens United is too difficult?

C) If having too much socioeconomic power concentrated in the hands of one person makes that person a "public menace", and the point of this is to prevent that kind of power, shouldn't you also go after people who acquire socioeconomic power through non-financial means?  Does Bill Gates' wealth really make him more powerful than, say, Rachel Maddow?  It seems to me that, if one's goal is purely acquisition of socioeconomic power, acquiring it through media/celebrity/sports/internet is much easier than trying to become a billionaire first.

This is assuming you're referring to socioeconomic policy, and not actual economic power.  Obviously billionaires have more of that but I don't think the public is really that worried about which billionaire owns which NBA team or whose name is on what building in midtown Manhattan.

Do you really think that the only types of economic power that somebody can hold are directly influencing policy decisions or "owning NBA teams"? Seriously?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Long post about Warren's populist rhetoric

ok boomer

Devastating.  The heroic maroon avatar strikes again.  How will the anti-populists ever recover?

Buddy, you're in meltdown over the fact that the Democratic Party is finally growing a spine and standing for something other than "we're less bad than the other guys". If you think having a Democratic Party with a backbone is the worst thing that could happen to anything ever, you've not been paying attention to the world.

This isn't Chapo Trap House, you can't just win an argument by labeling your opponent as "spineless" or "having a meltdown" or "not paying attention" whatever other insult you think up.

Pretty typical of socialists to ignore the actual argument and just spam insults.  Reminds me of Trump.

Okay, I'll bite.

The argument for a wealth tax is that enormous private fortunes represent a public menace in terms of the undue amount of influence they give the people who hold them over our economy and our society. If billionaires were all Scrooge McDuck benignly swimming in pools of gold bullion or Bruce Wayne inventing sci-fi technology to use to beat up street toughs, I don't think people would care about "soaking" them nearly as much; however, as things actually are, these are people whose inordinate levels of socioeconomic power are legitimate subjects of the same sort of critique as excessive government power.

A) What does this have to do with my original post?

B) If having too much wealth gives you too much power, shouldn't we then fix the levers of power so they can't be pulled by wealth alone?

Is the wealth tax ultimately just you guys taking all of Bloomberg's money because repealing Citizens United is too difficult?

C) If having too much socioeconomic power concentrated in the hands of one person makes that person a "public menace", and the point of this is to prevent that kind of power, shouldn't you also go after people who acquire socioeconomic power through non-financial means?  Does Bill Gates' wealth really make him more powerful than, say, Rachel Maddow?  It seems to me that, if one's goal is purely acquisition of socioeconomic power, acquiring it through media/celebrity/sports/internet is much easier than trying to become a billionaire first.

This is assuming you're referring to socioeconomic policy, and not actual economic power.  Obviously billionaires have more of that but I don't think the public is really that worried about which billionaire owns which NBA team or whose name is on what building in midtown Manhattan.

Do you really think that the only types of socioeconomic power than somebody can hold are directly influencing policy decisions or "owning NBA teams"? Seriously?

No I don't but if you have some particular form of power that's exclusive to billionaires that you're worried about, name it.

All the examples of "billionaires behaving badly" I always hear Warren complaining about are political examples, like the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson or the Mercers spending a whole bunch of money to influence our elections and promote lies and conspiracies.

It seems to me that your argument is, billionaires have this power, and it's such an insidious power for them to wield that we need to break them, we need to take all their money, to rip away their power.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Long post about Warren's populist rhetoric

ok boomer

Devastating.  The heroic maroon avatar strikes again.  How will the anti-populists ever recover?

Buddy, you're in meltdown over the fact that the Democratic Party is finally growing a spine and standing for something other than "we're less bad than the other guys". If you think having a Democratic Party with a backbone is the worst thing that could happen to anything ever, you've not been paying attention to the world.

This isn't Chapo Trap House, you can't just win an argument by labeling your opponent as "spineless" or "having a meltdown" or "not paying attention" whatever other insult you think up.

Pretty typical of socialists to ignore the actual argument and just spam insults.  Reminds me of Trump.

Okay, I'll bite.

The argument for a wealth tax is that enormous private fortunes represent a public menace in terms of the undue amount of influence they give the people who hold them over our economy and our society. If billionaires were all Scrooge McDuck benignly swimming in pools of gold bullion or Bruce Wayne inventing sci-fi technology to use to beat up street toughs, I don't think people would care about "soaking" them nearly as much; however, as things actually are, these are people whose inordinate levels of socioeconomic power are legitimate subjects of the same sort of critique as excessive government power.

A) What does this have to do with my original post?

B) If having too much wealth gives you too much power, shouldn't we then fix the levers of power so they can't be pulled by wealth alone?

Is the wealth tax ultimately just you guys taking all of Bloomberg's money because repealing Citizens United is too difficult?

C) If having too much socioeconomic power concentrated in the hands of one person makes that person a "public menace", and the point of this is to prevent that kind of power, shouldn't you also go after people who acquire socioeconomic power through non-financial means?  Does Bill Gates' wealth really make him more powerful than, say, Rachel Maddow?  It seems to me that, if one's goal is purely acquisition of socioeconomic power, acquiring it through media/celebrity/sports/internet is much easier than trying to become a billionaire first.

This is assuming you're referring to socioeconomic policy, and not actual economic power.  Obviously billionaires have more of that but I don't think the public is really that worried about which billionaire owns which NBA team or whose name is on what building in midtown Manhattan.

Do you really think that the only types of socioeconomic power than somebody can hold are directly influencing policy decisions or "owning NBA teams"? Seriously?

No I don't but if you have some particular form of power that's exclusive to billionaires that you're worried about, name it.

Owning the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Long post about Warren's populist rhetoric

ok boomer

Devastating.  The heroic maroon avatar strikes again.  How will the anti-populists ever recover?

Buddy, you're in meltdown over the fact that the Democratic Party is finally growing a spine and standing for something other than "we're less bad than the other guys". If you think having a Democratic Party with a backbone is the worst thing that could happen to anything ever, you've not been paying attention to the world.

This isn't Chapo Trap House, you can't just win an argument by labeling your opponent as "spineless" or "having a meltdown" or "not paying attention" whatever other insult you think up.

Pretty typical of socialists to ignore the actual argument and just spam insults.  Reminds me of Trump.

Okay, I'll bite.

The argument for a wealth tax is that enormous private fortunes represent a public menace in terms of the undue amount of influence they give the people who hold them over our economy and our society. If billionaires were all Scrooge McDuck benignly swimming in pools of gold bullion or Bruce Wayne inventing sci-fi technology to use to beat up street toughs, I don't think people would care about "soaking" them nearly as much; however, as things actually are, these are people whose inordinate levels of socioeconomic power are legitimate subjects of the same sort of critique as excessive government power.

A) What does this have to do with my original post?

B) If having too much wealth gives you too much power, shouldn't we then fix the levers of power so they can't be pulled by wealth alone?

Is the wealth tax ultimately just you guys taking all of Bloomberg's money because repealing Citizens United is too difficult?

C) If having too much socioeconomic power concentrated in the hands of one person makes that person a "public menace", and the point of this is to prevent that kind of power, shouldn't you also go after people who acquire socioeconomic power through non-financial means?  Does Bill Gates' wealth really make him more powerful than, say, Rachel Maddow?  It seems to me that, if one's goal is purely acquisition of socioeconomic power, acquiring it through media/celebrity/sports/internet is much easier than trying to become a billionaire first.

This is assuming you're referring to socioeconomic policy, and not actual economic power.  Obviously billionaires have more of that but I don't think the public is really that worried about which billionaire owns which NBA team or whose name is on what building in midtown Manhattan.

Do you really think that the only types of socioeconomic power than somebody can hold are directly influencing policy decisions or "owning NBA teams"? Seriously?

No I don't but if you have some particular form of power that's exclusive to billionaires that you're worried about, name it.

Owning the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

What's insidious about that?  In capitalism, someone is always going to own the means of production, distribution and exchange.

And owning those means is not a billionaire thing.  There are millions of businesses in the United States and only a few hundred billionaires.

For instance, Jeff Bezos owns Amazon, but he is dependent on UPS to deliver his packages.  The CEO of UPS is David Abney, who has a net worth of around $50 million.

If you eliminate the wealth of all these billionaires, they will still own the means of production.  Jeff Bezos being worth $150 billion or $150,000 doesn't change anything.  It's his vision and business skill that puts him in that position, not his wealth, which he didn't even have until Amazon became a huge success.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Long post about Warren's populist rhetoric

ok boomer

Devastating.  The heroic maroon avatar strikes again.  How will the anti-populists ever recover?

Buddy, you're in meltdown over the fact that the Democratic Party is finally growing a spine and standing for something other than "we're less bad than the other guys". If you think having a Democratic Party with a backbone is the worst thing that could happen to anything ever, you've not been paying attention to the world.

This isn't Chapo Trap House, you can't just win an argument by labeling your opponent as "spineless" or "having a meltdown" or "not paying attention" whatever other insult you think up.

Pretty typical of socialists to ignore the actual argument and just spam insults.  Reminds me of Trump.

Okay, I'll bite.

The argument for a wealth tax is that enormous private fortunes represent a public menace in terms of the undue amount of influence they give the people who hold them over our economy and our society. If billionaires were all Scrooge McDuck benignly swimming in pools of gold bullion or Bruce Wayne inventing sci-fi technology to use to beat up street toughs, I don't think people would care about "soaking" them nearly as much; however, as things actually are, these are people whose inordinate levels of socioeconomic power are legitimate subjects of the same sort of critique as excessive government power.

A) What does this have to do with my original post?

B) If having too much wealth gives you too much power, shouldn't we then fix the levers of power so they can't be pulled by wealth alone?

Is the wealth tax ultimately just you guys taking all of Bloomberg's money because repealing Citizens United is too difficult?

C) If having too much socioeconomic power concentrated in the hands of one person makes that person a "public menace", and the point of this is to prevent that kind of power, shouldn't you also go after people who acquire socioeconomic power through non-financial means?  Does Bill Gates' wealth really make him more powerful than, say, Rachel Maddow?  It seems to me that, if one's goal is purely acquisition of socioeconomic power, acquiring it through media/celebrity/sports/internet is much easier than trying to become a billionaire first.

This is assuming you're referring to socioeconomic policy, and not actual economic power.  Obviously billionaires have more of that but I don't think the public is really that worried about which billionaire owns which NBA team or whose name is on what building in midtown Manhattan.

Do you really think that the only types of socioeconomic power than somebody can hold are directly influencing policy decisions or "owning NBA teams"? Seriously?

No I don't but if you have some particular form of power that's exclusive to billionaires that you're worried about, name it.

Owning the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

What's insidious about that?  In capitalism, someone is always going to own the means of production, distribution and exchange.

That's capitalism's problem.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Okay, I'll bite.

The argument for a wealth tax is that enormous private fortunes represent a public menace in terms of the undue amount of influence they give the people who hold them over our economy and our society. If billionaires were all Scrooge McDuck benignly swimming in pools of gold bullion or Bruce Wayne inventing sci-fi technology to use to beat up street toughs, I don't think people would care about "soaking" them nearly as much; however, as things actually are, these are people whose inordinate levels of socioeconomic power are legitimate subjects of the same sort of critique as excessive government power.

A) What does this have to do with my original post?

B) If having too much wealth gives you too much power, shouldn't we then fix the levers of power so they can't be pulled by wealth alone?

Is the wealth tax ultimately just you guys taking all of Bloomberg's money because repealing Citizens United is too difficult?

C) If having too much socioeconomic power concentrated in the hands of one person makes that person a "public menace", and the point of this is to prevent that kind of power, shouldn't you also go after people who acquire socioeconomic power through non-financial means?  Does Bill Gates' wealth really make him more powerful than, say, Rachel Maddow?  It seems to me that, if one's goal is purely acquisition of socioeconomic power, acquiring it through media/celebrity/sports/internet is much easier than trying to become a billionaire first.

This is assuming you're referring to socioeconomic policy, and not actual economic power.  Obviously billionaires have more of that but I don't think the public is really that worried about which billionaire owns which NBA team or whose name is on what building in midtown Manhattan.

Do you really think that the only types of socioeconomic power than somebody can hold are directly influencing policy decisions or "owning NBA teams"? Seriously?

No I don't but if you have some particular form of power that's exclusive to billionaires that you're worried about, name it.

Owning the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

What's insidious about that?  In capitalism, someone is always going to own the means of production, distribution and exchange.

That's capitalism's problem.

OK, so what does any of this have to do with a wealth tax?

You just want a full Marxist revolution to put bureaucrats in charge of the means of production, but in lieu of that, you'd at least like to screw the big capitalists (the enemy).

That's what's really going on here.  It's not defensible policy, just red-blooded ideology.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Okay, I'll bite.

The argument for a wealth tax is that enormous private fortunes represent a public menace in terms of the undue amount of influence they give the people who hold them over our economy and our society. If billionaires were all Scrooge McDuck benignly swimming in pools of gold bullion or Bruce Wayne inventing sci-fi technology to use to beat up street toughs, I don't think people would care about "soaking" them nearly as much; however, as things actually are, these are people whose inordinate levels of socioeconomic power are legitimate subjects of the same sort of critique as excessive government power.

A) What does this have to do with my original post?

B) If having too much wealth gives you too much power, shouldn't we then fix the levers of power so they can't be pulled by wealth alone?

Is the wealth tax ultimately just you guys taking all of Bloomberg's money because repealing Citizens United is too difficult?

C) If having too much socioeconomic power concentrated in the hands of one person makes that person a "public menace", and the point of this is to prevent that kind of power, shouldn't you also go after people who acquire socioeconomic power through non-financial means?  Does Bill Gates' wealth really make him more powerful than, say, Rachel Maddow?  It seems to me that, if one's goal is purely acquisition of socioeconomic power, acquiring it through media/celebrity/sports/internet is much easier than trying to become a billionaire first.

This is assuming you're referring to socioeconomic policy, and not actual economic power.  Obviously billionaires have more of that but I don't think the public is really that worried about which billionaire owns which NBA team or whose name is on what building in midtown Manhattan.

Do you really think that the only types of socioeconomic power than somebody can hold are directly influencing policy decisions or "owning NBA teams"? Seriously?

No I don't but if you have some particular form of power that's exclusive to billionaires that you're worried about, name it.

Owning the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

What's insidious about that?  In capitalism, someone is always going to own the means of production, distribution and exchange.

That's capitalism's problem.

OK, so what does any of this have to do with a wealth tax?

You just want a full Marxist revolution

No I don't.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Okay, I'll bite.

The argument for a wealth tax is that enormous private fortunes represent a public menace in terms of the undue amount of influence they give the people who hold them over our economy and our society. If billionaires were all Scrooge McDuck benignly swimming in pools of gold bullion or Bruce Wayne inventing sci-fi technology to use to beat up street toughs, I don't think people would care about "soaking" them nearly as much; however, as things actually are, these are people whose inordinate levels of socioeconomic power are legitimate subjects of the same sort of critique as excessive government power.

A) What does this have to do with my original post?

B) If having too much wealth gives you too much power, shouldn't we then fix the levers of power so they can't be pulled by wealth alone?

Is the wealth tax ultimately just you guys taking all of Bloomberg's money because repealing Citizens United is too difficult?

C) If having too much socioeconomic power concentrated in the hands of one person makes that person a "public menace", and the point of this is to prevent that kind of power, shouldn't you also go after people who acquire socioeconomic power through non-financial means?  Does Bill Gates' wealth really make him more powerful than, say, Rachel Maddow?  It seems to me that, if one's goal is purely acquisition of socioeconomic power, acquiring it through media/celebrity/sports/internet is much easier than trying to become a billionaire first.

This is assuming you're referring to socioeconomic policy, and not actual economic power.  Obviously billionaires have more of that but I don't think the public is really that worried about which billionaire owns which NBA team or whose name is on what building in midtown Manhattan.

Do you really think that the only types of socioeconomic power than somebody can hold are directly influencing policy decisions or "owning NBA teams"? Seriously?

No I don't but if you have some particular form of power that's exclusive to billionaires that you're worried about, name it.

Owning the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

What's insidious about that?  In capitalism, someone is always going to own the means of production, distribution and exchange.

That's capitalism's problem.

OK, so what does any of this have to do with a wealth tax?

You just want a full Marxist revolution

No I don't.

OK, so if your problem isn't with billionaires specifically but rather with something fundamental to capitalism, what's the solution?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Okay, I'll bite.

The argument for a wealth tax is that enormous private fortunes represent a public menace in terms of the undue amount of influence they give the people who hold them over our economy and our society. If billionaires were all Scrooge McDuck benignly swimming in pools of gold bullion or Bruce Wayne inventing sci-fi technology to use to beat up street toughs, I don't think people would care about "soaking" them nearly as much; however, as things actually are, these are people whose inordinate levels of socioeconomic power are legitimate subjects of the same sort of critique as excessive government power.

A) What does this have to do with my original post?

B) If having too much wealth gives you too much power, shouldn't we then fix the levers of power so they can't be pulled by wealth alone?

Is the wealth tax ultimately just you guys taking all of Bloomberg's money because repealing Citizens United is too difficult?

C) If having too much socioeconomic power concentrated in the hands of one person makes that person a "public menace", and the point of this is to prevent that kind of power, shouldn't you also go after people who acquire socioeconomic power through non-financial means?  Does Bill Gates' wealth really make him more powerful than, say, Rachel Maddow?  It seems to me that, if one's goal is purely acquisition of socioeconomic power, acquiring it through media/celebrity/sports/internet is much easier than trying to become a billionaire first.

This is assuming you're referring to socioeconomic policy, and not actual economic power.  Obviously billionaires have more of that but I don't think the public is really that worried about which billionaire owns which NBA team or whose name is on what building in midtown Manhattan.

Do you really think that the only types of socioeconomic power than somebody can hold are directly influencing policy decisions or "owning NBA teams"? Seriously?

No I don't but if you have some particular form of power that's exclusive to billionaires that you're worried about, name it.

Owning the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

What's insidious about that?  In capitalism, someone is always going to own the means of production, distribution and exchange.

That's capitalism's problem.

OK, so what does any of this have to do with a wealth tax?

You just want a full Marxist revolution

No I don't.

OK, so if your problem isn't with billionaires specifically but rather with something fundamental to capitalism, what's the solution?

Difficult to say, but I think the burden of proof should be on you to explain why you apparently think capitalism and unreconstructed Marxism are the only economic systems imaginable.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Okay, I'll bite.

The argument for a wealth tax is that enormous private fortunes represent a public menace in terms of the undue amount of influence they give the people who hold them over our economy and our society. If billionaires were all Scrooge McDuck benignly swimming in pools of gold bullion or Bruce Wayne inventing sci-fi technology to use to beat up street toughs, I don't think people would care about "soaking" them nearly as much; however, as things actually are, these are people whose inordinate levels of socioeconomic power are legitimate subjects of the same sort of critique as excessive government power.

A) What does this have to do with my original post?

B) If having too much wealth gives you too much power, shouldn't we then fix the levers of power so they can't be pulled by wealth alone?

Is the wealth tax ultimately just you guys taking all of Bloomberg's money because repealing Citizens United is too difficult?

C) If having too much socioeconomic power concentrated in the hands of one person makes that person a "public menace", and the point of this is to prevent that kind of power, shouldn't you also go after people who acquire socioeconomic power through non-financial means?  Does Bill Gates' wealth really make him more powerful than, say, Rachel Maddow?  It seems to me that, if one's goal is purely acquisition of socioeconomic power, acquiring it through media/celebrity/sports/internet is much easier than trying to become a billionaire first.

This is assuming you're referring to socioeconomic policy, and not actual economic power.  Obviously billionaires have more of that but I don't think the public is really that worried about which billionaire owns which NBA team or whose name is on what building in midtown Manhattan.

Do you really think that the only types of socioeconomic power than somebody can hold are directly influencing policy decisions or "owning NBA teams"? Seriously?

No I don't but if you have some particular form of power that's exclusive to billionaires that you're worried about, name it.

Owning the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

What's insidious about that?  In capitalism, someone is always going to own the means of production, distribution and exchange.

That's capitalism's problem.

OK, so what does any of this have to do with a wealth tax?

You just want a full Marxist revolution

No I don't.

OK, so if your problem isn't with billionaires specifically but rather with something fundamental to capitalism, what's the solution?

Difficult to say, but I think the burden of proof should be on you to explain why you apparently think capitalism and unreconstructed Marxism are the only economic systems imaginable.

Um, no, that's not a debate I'm in the mood to have.

The topic of discussion is the wealth tax.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Okay, I'll bite.

The argument for a wealth tax is that enormous private fortunes represent a public menace in terms of the undue amount of influence they give the people who hold them over our economy and our society. If billionaires were all Scrooge McDuck benignly swimming in pools of gold bullion or Bruce Wayne inventing sci-fi technology to use to beat up street toughs, I don't think people would care about "soaking" them nearly as much; however, as things actually are, these are people whose inordinate levels of socioeconomic power are legitimate subjects of the same sort of critique as excessive government power.

A) What does this have to do with my original post?

B) If having too much wealth gives you too much power, shouldn't we then fix the levers of power so they can't be pulled by wealth alone?

Is the wealth tax ultimately just you guys taking all of Bloomberg's money because repealing Citizens United is too difficult?

C) If having too much socioeconomic power concentrated in the hands of one person makes that person a "public menace", and the point of this is to prevent that kind of power, shouldn't you also go after people who acquire socioeconomic power through non-financial means?  Does Bill Gates' wealth really make him more powerful than, say, Rachel Maddow?  It seems to me that, if one's goal is purely acquisition of socioeconomic power, acquiring it through media/celebrity/sports/internet is much easier than trying to become a billionaire first.

This is assuming you're referring to socioeconomic policy, and not actual economic power.  Obviously billionaires have more of that but I don't think the public is really that worried about which billionaire owns which NBA team or whose name is on what building in midtown Manhattan.

Do you really think that the only types of socioeconomic power than somebody can hold are directly influencing policy decisions or "owning NBA teams"? Seriously?

No I don't but if you have some particular form of power that's exclusive to billionaires that you're worried about, name it.

Owning the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

What's insidious about that?  In capitalism, someone is always going to own the means of production, distribution and exchange.

That's capitalism's problem.

OK, so what does any of this have to do with a wealth tax?

You just want a full Marxist revolution

No I don't.

OK, so if your problem isn't with billionaires specifically but rather with something fundamental to capitalism, what's the solution?

Difficult to say, but I think the burden of proof should be on you to explain why you apparently think capitalism and unreconstructed Marxism are the only economic systems imaginable.

Um, no, that's not a debate I'm in the mood to have.

Neither am I. Have a good afternoon.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Ooops, I lost the House in the midterms. So much for that promise." - Warren Any Democrat

Not necessarily.

https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1195698856547229697

The odds that a President Warren would have both chambers after the 2022 midterms is not good. This is a pretty hackish defense of Warren clearly not pushing for single payer.

[Heebie Jeebie]

"Ooops, I lost the House in the midterms. So much for that promise." - Warren Any Democrat

Not necessarily.

https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1195698856547229697

The odds that a President Warren would have both chambers after the 2022 midterms is not good. This is a pretty hackish defense of Warren clearly not pushing for single payer.

Weigel says a Demo president "would have a shot at that." Nobody's arguing that it's likely Dems could keep their majorities. Regardless, nobody with any sense thinks single payer is going to pass all at once in the first two years of any Democrat's term, and Warren is far and away the candidate most committed to actually getting some single payer plan passed.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

"Ooops, I lost the House in the midterms. So much for that promise." - Warren Any Democrat

Not necessarily.

https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1195698856547229697

The odds that a President Warren would have both chambers after the 2022 midterms is not good. This is a pretty hackish defense of Warren clearly not pushing for single payer.

Weigel says a Demo president "would have a shot at that." Nobody's arguing that it's likely Dems could keep their majorities. Regardless, nobody with any sense thinks single payer is going to pass all at once in the first two years of any Democrat's term, and Warren is far and away the candidate most committed to actually getting some single payer plan passed.

Don't argue with jfern. It's a lost cause.

Jfern can literally twist titanium beams into criticisms of anybody who isn't Bernie.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Ooops, I lost the House in the midterms. So much for that promise." - Warren Any Democrat

Not necessarily.

https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1195698856547229697

The odds that a President Warren would have both chambers after the 2022 midterms is not good. This is a pretty hackish defense of Warren clearly not pushing for single payer.

Weigel says a Demo president "would have a shot at that." Nobody's arguing that it's likely Dems could keep their majorities. Regardless, nobody with any sense thinks single payer is going to pass all at once in the first two years of any Democrat's term, and Warren is far and away the candidate most committed to actually getting some single payer plan passed.

Don't argue with jfern. It's a lost cause.

Jfern can literally twist titanium beams into criticisms of anybody who isn't Bernie.

Warren really has made it clear that single payer won't be a priority. This talk of the 3rd year is treating voters like idiots.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

"Ooops, I lost the House in the midterms. So much for that promise." - Warren Any Democrat

Not necessarily.

https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1195698856547229697

The odds that a President Warren would have both chambers after the 2022 midterms is not good. This is a pretty hackish defense of Warren clearly not pushing for single payer.

Weigel says a Demo president "would have a shot at that." Nobody's arguing that it's likely Dems could keep their majorities. Regardless, nobody with any sense thinks single payer is going to pass all at once in the first two years of any Democrat's term, and Warren is far and away the candidate most committed to actually getting some single payer plan passed.

Don't argue with jfern. It's a lost cause.

Jfern can literally twist titanium beams into criticisms of anybody who isn't Bernie.

Warren really has made it clear that single payer won't be a priority. This talk of the 3rd year is treating voters like idiots.

I literally don't care about your opinion at all.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Buttigieg was right all along, this race will be between himself and Warren; as a result, Biden holding onto black vote in SC, isnt right. He only relies on the AA vote when he needs them, but like when AA,wanted Green jobs, after he promised them in 2010, Biden, who was in charge of that task force, didnt do nothing .

[BP🌹]

She also supports abolishing people's right to buy the insurance they want to buy which is insane as welll

The real insanity is wanting to have to "buy" insurance.

[OSR stands with Israel]

She also supports abolishing people's right to buy the insurance they want to buy which is insane as welll

The real insanity is wanting to have to "buy" insurance.

It is our right to choose what we want to buy, so what gives you the right to tell people that they cant buy insurance.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Medical insurance is only a small part of Dems reform agenda, there are other issues pressing. That's what homecare is for, people are treated at home instead of hospitals and nursing homes.

[Pericles]

"Ooops, I lost the House in the midterms. So much for that promise." - Warren Any Democrat

Not necessarily.

https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1195698856547229697

None of the Republicans up in 2022 are in blue states, none are even up in any state Clinton won. There are between 4-7 seats (depending on how the special elections in 2020 go) that'll be up in states Trump won by less than 5% in 2016, while there'll be 3 Democratic seats up in states Clinton won by less than 5%. While it superficially might look like an opportunity, in a Republican leaning national environment Democrats will probably lose Senate seats, this is not a reverse 2018.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My own objections to Warren's idiotic tax proposals have nothing to do with their supposed affects upon particular classes, but their impracticality of enacting, their gimmickiness, or both.

Despite the wishes or obfuscations of those who propose a wealth tax, there is zero chance that it would not be considered to be a direct tax under the Constitution, and thus requiring a complicated apportionment by States that has caused no direct tax to ever be passed.  Moreover, the social intent of the wealth tax could be much more easily be achieved by reinvigorating the estate tax.

I've already elsewhere explained why her proposal to tax unrealized capital gains is a complicated gimmick that robs the future of tax revenue to gain a one-time infusion of revenue. The only people who would benefit in the long-term are tax accountants, lawyers, and preparers from all the extra work they would get.

[Heebie Jeebie]

My own objections to Warren's idiotic tax proposals have nothing to do with their supposed affects upon particular classes, but their impracticality of enacting, their gimmickiness, or both.

Despite the wishes or obfuscations of those who propose a wealth tax, there is zero chance that it would not be considered to be a direct tax under the Constitution, and thus requiring a complicated apportionment by States that has caused no direct tax to ever be passed.  Moreover, the social intent of the wealth tax could be much more easily be achieved by reinvigorating the estate tax.

I've already elsewhere explained why her proposal to tax unrealized capital gains is a complicated gimmick that robs the future of tax revenue to gain a one-time infusion of revenue. The only people who would benefit in the long-term are tax accountants, lawyers, and preparers from all the extra work they would get.

You should take her tax proposals seriously but not literally.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My own objections to Warren's idiotic tax proposals have nothing to do with their supposed affects upon particular classes, but their impracticality of enacting, their gimmickiness, or both.

Despite the wishes or obfuscations of those who propose a wealth tax, there is zero chance that it would not be considered to be a direct tax under the Constitution, and thus requiring a complicated apportionment by States that has caused no direct tax to ever be passed.  Moreover, the social intent of the wealth tax could be much more easily be achieved by reinvigorating the estate tax.

I've already elsewhere explained why her proposal to tax unrealized capital gains is a complicated gimmick that robs the future of tax revenue to gain a one-time infusion of revenue. The only people who would benefit in the long-term are tax accountants, lawyers, and preparers from all the extra work they would get.

You should take her tax proposals seriously but not literally.

Why? They have no chance of working seriously. One of her supposed claims to why the Democrats should choose her be their nominee is that she's a big thinker who comes up with workable plans to solve the real problems we face now. At least on tax policy, her ideas so far are complete rubbish, even if you think we need to increase taxes on the wealthy.

[GP270watch]

 That's a completely nonsense comparison. Warren thinks of programs to help the middle class and is then overly scrutinized to how she will pay for it and she attempts an honest accounting of how she would.

 Paul Ryan advocated blowing huge holes in our budgets with endless tax cuts and then brutalizing the people who need the social safety net by shredding it to supposedly "pay" for these tax cuts. Or he would simply lie and say these tax giveaways would "pay" for themselves.

 The two are not comparable in any way and you are dishonest for even alluding to such a comparison.