JohnRawls wrote:With the current unexpected developments in the US, the chances are likely that Warren might be the democratic candidate.
What are the unexpected developments in the US?
JohnRawls wrote:For all the information that i have heard about her (Non-news), she is considered one of the most smartest people in DC if not the smartest.
If she's the smartest person in DC, we're in serious trouble.
JohnRawls wrote:She also revealed her medicare plan for all aka the biggest monetary redistribution program for the middle class from the corporations/top 0.1%. Average joes will love this (putting the propaganda aside).
Pretty much every pension fund and 401k invests in major corporations. You can't redistribute money from yourself to yourself through the government as an intermediary and come out ahead. There are no free lunches in economics.
JohnRawls wrote:So do you think that she will get the candidacy and that she will beat Trump?
I think she has a good shot at it, because Biden's corruption is becoming clearer with the recent release of more documents by John Solomon. Bernie seems to have more popular support, but I think Wall Street will do what they can to extinguish his candidacy just as they did in 2016.
JohnRawls wrote:As i said, it is a redistribution program so the taxes will be shouldered by the Corporations and the top 1%. Middle class won't be taxed as i understand. That is the whole point of redistribution.
You do realize that the income tax was never intended to be paid by middle class or working class people at all. It was a tax on the rich. There is a fool born everyday, which is why that lie still works.
Rancid wrote:Corrected
Corporations are persons under the law.
late wrote:A country like England spends about half what we do with similar life expectancy.
That's because they don't allow corporations to charge extortionate rates for health care.
late wrote:The transition will be difficult, it always is for any major program.
US debt to GDP is north of 100%. It will destroy the US economy very quickly.
late wrote:But the deal is the same as Obamacare, the people that were screaming against it started screaming to keep it after they've gotten regular health care.
Only people with pre-existing conditions are screaming to keep ObamaCare. It's far more expensive and provides totally unnecessary coverage like transgender surgery, gynecology for men, child coverage for childless couples, etc.
Rugoz wrote:I don't know why you think this is an advantage. She's a nerdy white liberal.
While apocryphal, a woman was once reported to have told Adlai Stevenson that he was the smartest person in the race and he should be winning, whereupon he responded that the smartest people aren't a majority.
Tainari88 wrote:If I was in charge of dealing with a Trump scene I would not impeach, I would organize a mass effort at reforming the electoral college and getting rid of anything that is not about a popular vote presidency.
You need two thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and 3/4 (35) of the legislatures of the 50 states to ratify. You would still be at it in 2040.
Tainari88 wrote:Then I would be coping with passing legislation reforming what the executive branch is allowed to do by the current checks and balances.
Unconstitutional. It would be struck down immediately.
late wrote:"Add all this up and Warren’s team projects national health expenditures of $52 trillion over 10 years — exactly what’s projected in the absence of single-payer. Therefore, Berwick and Johnson conclude, Warren’s proposal would “cover every single resident of the U.S. with much more generous coverage and virtually no cost-sharing at a total cost just under the amount the U.S. is currently set to spend on health care under our existing system.”
Right. Since $5.2T a year is more than the current total of all US tax revenue, we'd be looking at a doubling of income tax rates. The math is simple, and it's basically not feasible. The health system needs to be reformed. Providing universal coverage to a corrupt system preserves corruption and forces everyone to pay. It will be universally unpopular.
JohnRawls wrote:- Warren proposes a financial transactions tax of 0.1 percent of the value of every stock, bond, or derivatives transaction. That raises $800 billion. Then she adds a “systemic risk fee” on financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. That’s another $100 billion. ( Redistribution from capital to workers basically.)
US residents pay capital gains tax. Financial transactions tax is popular in Europe, because it's hard to get people to pay capital gains tax. That's why VAT is popular in Europe too.
JohnRawls wrote:- Prior to this plan, Warren’s wealth tax was 2 percent on assets over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Sorry billionaires — now it’s 6 percent, which raises another $1 trillion. Warren also proposes taxing capital gains for the top 1 percent at the same rate as normal income, and doing so on an annual basis, rather than just when the sale is made. That raises $2 trillion. (Tax hike for the top 1%. Again redistribution from Capital to labour)
Sorry billionaires? Wall Street has already said that if the Democrats run Warren, they will starve the DNC for cash. Have you noticed the difference in fund raising between Trump and all of the DNC candidates combined? Trump is dwarfing them.
JohnRawls wrote:- Warren proposes a massive increase in IRS enforcement aimed at reducing the tax avoidance rate from 15 percent to 10 percent.
The US was founded on a tax revolution. I don't think they are going to risk doubling taxes and then putting a gun to everyone's head. If Warren is that smart, she would understand immediately that the Secret Service would not be able to protect her.
JohnRawls wrote:- She also gets rid of the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund, which is basically a temporary increase in defense spending that’s become permanent. You can read more about OCO funds here, but the bottom line is it saves $800 billion. ( Less military spending which will go for healthcare
She would have to betray the Kurds, and then some...
ThirdTerm wrote:Trump remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, according to a set of new surveys from The New York Times Upshot and Siena College.
If that's the case, it's even worse for Democrats. That's registered voters. Add 2-3% to Trump's numbers, because likely voters will push Trump's numbers up considerably.
Verv wrote:This also makes one wonder: are the polls being listed here truly as accurate as they should be? The polls were famously wrong leading up to right about two weeks before the election when Pres. Trump suddenly experienced a jump (in spite of the fact that the last big debate and the campaigns were winding down).
If these numbers presented here have already been massaged to some degree, this could be disastrous for the Left.
My sentiments exactly. If that's what they're seeing now, it's going to be a landslide for Trump.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden