Elizabeth Warren might destroy Trump. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Will Warren win the democratic nomination and the beat Trump?

She will not get the nomination
10
36%
She will get the nomination and loose to Trump in the presidential race
8
29%
She will get the nomination and win against Trump in the presidential race
9
32%
Other(please specify)
1
4%
#15046662
blackjack21 wrote:

1) 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.

2) 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.


3) That's because they don't allow corporations to charge extortionate rates for health care.


4) US debt to GDP is north of 100%. It will destroy the US economy very quickly.


5) Only people with pre-existing conditions are screaming to keep ObamaCare.


6) The math is simple.

7) The health system needs to be reformed.

8) Providing universal coverage to a corrupt system preserves corruption and forces everyone to pay. It will be universally unpopular.


9) 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.


10) 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.


11) 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.


12) She would have to betray the Kurds, and then some...


13) 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.





1) John is a Fox hack working with the crook Lev Parnas. You want corruption? Lev has agreed to flip, which means his connection to Putin will see the light of day.

2) Welcome to the planet? Since you are new, I should tell you that, since the late 1800s, the Modern World has taxes. You can always move to Somalia.

3) It's because they are Single Payer. People change jobs, so insurance doesn't worry about the long term. But, in Single Payer, it is in the governments interest to save money. So Britain has one of the best preventitive care programs in the world.

4) That's not what macroeconomists say. But they do worry we throw money away on foolish wars and tax cuts, while ignoring things the country needs to do.

5) Hardly. There are millions that never had regular health care before.

6) You do love fiction, but this really isn't the place for it.

7) Yes!!!!!!!!

8) First, getting insurance out of health care will remove one of the largest parts of the corruption. That also removes roughly 20% of the cost of health care. But you do have a point, in a perfect world, we would get this done, and move on. But in the country, it's one excruciatingly painful step at a time.

9) As the world's financial cop, we are in a uniquely good position to find and deal with all manner of financial crimes. It's something we need to do a lot more of even if this doesn't happen.

10) Something similar happened in the Great Depression. Business did fight FDR, but they eventually went back to running their businesses. Yes, it'll a fight, no it's not a reason to panic.

11) Most people don't like tax cheats. Your fantasy world may be based on Rambo macho, but use a little common sense, fer chrissake.

12) Trump already betrayed the Kurds, that ship has sailed.

13) Even with a candidate as lousy as Hillary was, with the Russian attacks, Comey screwing up, and all the other crap.. She got 3 MILLION more votes. Whoever the next candidate is will get 4 or 5 million more votes. If Trump wins, it will be due to the Electoral College.
#15046664
JohnRawls wrote:And here I thought you are for empowering the middle class. Your answer is basically it is not doable and will hurt profits of capital and corporations. The tax enforcement answer is also weird.

For once you have another candidate that actually is trying to shift money flows in the direction of the middle class to actually try to sort out the systemic problem with the middle class being under paid. And here you are rooting against it while you yourself aknowledged the problem in other threads. Health care for all reduces the burden on the middle class and allows them to spend the money elsewhere. Math was also shown that it is doable with few changes and that it will cost approximately the same.

Your critique of her plan is basically that corporations will not give her any money and that the tax evasion should continue because it is an unspoken tax increase. As for military funding, it's hard to say what cuts will be needed.

As for the unexpected developments, well as the video shows she is a bit socially awkward so I never thought that she has a chance in the first place. Many thought that and now she is doing home runs in the primaries with the healthcare plan and courting Bernie voters.


Assuming corporations will sit there and take it and not do everything within the law to pay less tax as everyone should and the corporations duties to their stock holders. The question that is really the biggest reason why she will never win is how is she going to get the black vote? I think that ship has sailed


edit
late wrote:1)
8) First, getting insurance out of health care will remove one of the largest parts of the corruption. That also removes roughly 20% of the cost of health care. But you do have a point, in a perfect world, we would get this done, and move on. But in the country, it's one excruciatingly painful step at a time.


@JohnRawls Do you have criticism for this? Getting rid of the health insurance industry? Another question Warren won't answer, how is she going to replace the 10 million jobs she wants to just end. How did that work for Hillary Clinton and the coal industry. Are you rooting for 10 million people to lose their jobs?
Last edited by Finfinder on 05 Nov 2019 13:36, edited 3 times in total.
#15046686
late wrote:1) John is a Fox hack working with the crook Lev Parnas. You want corruption? Lev has agreed to flip, which means his connection to Putin will see the light of day.

He's an investigative reporter. So was Catherine Herridge until CBS outbid Fox for her services. While he's innocent until proven guilty, why is Lev Parnas' criminal status an issue with you? The FBI uses criminal informants all the time. They are often a critical information resource. If he has a connection to Putin, perhaps we can learn more about where Christopher Steele got his dossier details, unless it was all cooked up by Nellie Ohr.

late wrote:2) Welcome to the planet? Since you are new, I should tell you that, since the late 1800s, the Modern World has taxes. You can always move to Somalia.

Not to worry. I'll just stick around and point out to the newbies that when politicians talk about taxing the rich, they are talking about taxing the middle class. The rich don't have enough money to fund Medicare for All.

late wrote:3) It's because they are Single Payer. People change jobs, so insurance doesn't worry about the long term. But, in Single Payer, it is in the governments interest to save money. So Britain has one of the best preventitive care programs in the world.

Insurance companies are very incentivized to save money. Competition. The US has to deal with the medical lobby and fraudulent medical billing first.

late wrote:4) That's not what macroeconomists say. But they do worry we throw money away on foolish wars and tax cuts, while ignoring things the country needs to do.

We don't need to do Medicare for all. Syria is a foolish war. We need to bring the troops home. We like our money, and we don't want to give it to the government. It's our prerogative.

late wrote:5) Hardly. There are millions that never had regular health care before.

Nobody was prevented from buying health care, except for people with pre-existing conditions.

late wrote:6) You do love fiction, but this really isn't the place for it.

You may think math is racist, but without billing reforms, taxes would have to double to pay for Medicare for All. It's already set to go bankrupt for over 65s.

late wrote:First, getting insurance out of health care will remove one of the largest parts of the corruption. That also removes roughly 20% of the cost of health care.

For one year... it does nothing to address the price of medical inflation.

late wrote:But you do have a point, in a perfect world, we would get this done, and move on. But in the country, it's one excruciatingly painful step at a time.

America is 50 countries federated. America doesn't even allow selling insurance across state lines.

late wrote:9) As the world's financial cop, we are in a uniquely good position to find and deal with all manner of financial crimes. It's something we need to do a lot more of even if this doesn't happen.

A big part of the anti-dollar push is that it would destroy US criminal jurisdiction if they transact business in something other than US dollars.

late wrote:10) Something similar happened in the Great Depression. Business did fight FDR, but they eventually went back to running their businesses. Yes, it'll a fight, no it's not a reason to panic.

Small business maybe. Big business was using the government to stimulate aggregate demand. That's what Social Security was all about. Yes, we know the retail story of helping the elderly. :roll:

late wrote:11) Most people don't like tax cheats. Your fantasy world may be based on Rambo macho, but use a little common sense, fer chrissake.

I live in California. I already pay 43% of my income to taxes. I'm not interested in paying more. Many people like me are leaving California for that reason.

late wrote:12) Trump already betrayed the Kurds, that ship has sailed.

That is the main stupid war we are in right now. So reflect on that.

late wrote:13) Even with a candidate as lousy as Hillary was, with the Russian attacks, Comey screwing up, and all the other crap.. She got 3 MILLION more votes.

I live in California. I do not believe the ballot box here for anything. The Democrats are corrupt through and through.

late wrote:If Trump wins, it will be due to the Electoral College.

Ahhhhhh...the wisdom of the founders.
#15046697
Some wallstreet dude say's the stock market will drop by 25% if warren elected, and jump by 15% if trump is re-elected.

MONEY!!! I'm pro-trump now!

Seriously though, roughly 50% of America does not own stock in anything, so they will not see shit. Amen. Fuck poor people.
#15046699
Finfinder wrote:Assuming corporations will sit there and take it and not do everything within the law to pay less tax as everyone should and the corporations duties to their stock holders. The question that is really the biggest reason why she will never win is how is she going to get the black vote? I think that ship has sailed


edit


@JohnRawls Do you have criticism for this? Getting rid of the health insurance industry? Another question Warren won't answer, how is she going to replace the 10 million jobs she wants to just end. How did that work for Hillary Clinton and the coal industry. Are you rooting for 10 million people to lose their jobs?


You misunderstand. She is not planning to end 10 million jobs that is a blatant lie on many levels actually. First of all, the insurance industry employs around 2.6 million people and not 10 million. Second of all, she is not planning to end those 2.6 million jobs. Around 800k of those jobs are administration related which are under threat. Now will all of those people get fired? Of course not, their administrative jobs are important BUT there will be a reduction in the number of those jobs because the health insurers will go under 1 system. So the bloat in administration will be reduced to make it more efficient. On the other hand there will be an increase in actual direct health care related jobs that will compensate.

Probably a reduction by 100k from those 800k will shifted from administrative management jobs to actual nursing, doctor etc jobs. (This is a rough number because i don't know the math but it is reasonable to assume this. You won't fire all of the administrators because administration is still needed. But around 10-20% will probably loose their jobs due to 1 system providing more efficient administration compared to industry being split among 100 systems etc)

It all boils down to the fact that private healthcare in the US is not effective or efficient. Problem with US healthcare is that for some reason private competition doesn't work in the healthcare industry while it works in other industries. My guess is that healthcare is just not an optional thing. I mean if you are sick then you NEED to get better and as fast as possible. It is not an option with a choice because otherwise you will die, be a cripple or etc. There is no "choice" for you so to speak. You either pay for the treatment or you die. You either pay for the drugs or you die. Market principles are fucked under such conditions. I understand that a lot of people make a lot of money on this and this is perhaps the biggest problem right now. The middle class is already strangled to death on many sides with corporations chasing highest ROI possible, low costs, high margins which in return creates a lot of under paid jobs along with less of them in total. (And outsourcing) Now on top of that you need to get an education which is super pricy and healthcare which again is super pricy. These are the reasons for the alt-right revolution in a nut shell. People are simply not gonna take this shit any longer.

This process in general is not only US related. EU is pretty much in the same bucket. The reason why we don't have so much issues compared to the US in that regard is because we have state funded education and healthcare in most places. (one or the other or both) It helps but it doesn't make the problem fully go away. What i mean by issues for example is the election of Trump who was basically anti-systemic candidate.(Shows that people do not trust the direction the country is taking) Europe as a whole won't elect an anti-systemic candidate BUT since the vote takes place on country by country basis, so we have some.
#15046706
blackjack21 wrote:
1) why is Lev Parnas' criminal status an issue with you? The FBI uses criminal informants all the time.


2) Not to worry. I'll just stick around and point out to the newbies that when politicians talk about taxing the rich, they are talking about taxing the middle class. The rich don't have enough money to fund Medicare for All.


3) Insurance companies are very incentivized to save money. Competition. The US has to deal with the medical lobby and fraudulent medical billing first.


4) We don't need to do Medicare for all.

5)Nobody was prevented from buying health care, except for people with pre-existing conditions.


6) It's already set to go bankrupt for over 65s.


7) For one year... it does nothing to address the price of medical inflation.


8) America is 50 countries federated. America doesn't even allow selling insurance across state lines.


9) A big part of the anti-dollar push is that it would destroy US criminal jurisdiction if they transact business in something other than US dollars.


10) Small business maybe. Big business was using the government to stimulate aggregate demand. That's what Social Security was all about. Yes, we know the retail story of helping the elderly.


11) I live in California. I already pay 43% of my income to taxes. I'm not interested in paying more. Many people like me are leaving California for that reason.


12) That is the main stupid war we are in right now. So reflect on that.


13) I live in California. I do not believe the ballot box here for anything. The Democrats are corrupt through and through.


14) Ahhhhhh...the wisdom of the founders.



1) Kompromat, Guililani got played.

2) Nice generic whine.

3) Insurance skims 20% off the top. The process wastes billions, and leaves millions without regular health care.

4) You don't need to breathe, but some prefer it.

5) You just contradicted yourself.

6) Translation into something vaguely accurate: it will cost more.

7) For every year.. since insurance costs rise with inflation, your statement that it does nothing is wrong. Every system has limits, people that can afford will get supplemental insurance.

8) Amusing, but silly. But there is no question that insurance companies would fight it in court, but on what grounds. There will still be insurance, all this is, is an expansion of an existing program.

9) Of course, but while that's a reply, it's not a response, counselor.

10) Mental mush. In the past, most businessmen were conservatives that hated Keynesian spending.

11) You keep exaggerating the cost side, and ignoring the disappearance of insurance premiums.

12) You brought up the Kurds. They're gone and they're not coming back. You wuz wrong.

13) Ahh, more of your fantasy world. Pop quiz, if Dems are cheating with millions of illegal votes, why didn't they win a few years ago? The question answers itself for anyone with a room temp IQ.

14) About 99% of the population was rural. The Founding Fathers wanted to protect cities and business. Now that has changed, and because of it, the rural areas have a growing advantage that threatens the legitimacy of the government. You know, of the people, by the people?

That's one hell of a dangerous game you play.
#15046710
blackjack21 wrote:The rich don't have enough money to fund Medicare for All.


Unsubstantiated claim.

blackjack21 wrote:Insurance companies are very incentivized to save money. Competition.


Yes, incentivized to save money for themselves, not necessarily for their customers or society as a whole.

blackjack21 wrote:You may think math is racist, but without billing reforms, taxes would have to double to pay for Medicare for All.


According to Warren's plan everybody will be covered at the same total cost of $52 trillion over the next 10 years. Without cost savings the total cost of Medicate for all is estimated to be $59 trillion, but she thinks she can reduce costs by $7 trillion. The difference is that people won't pay any insurance premiums whatsoever, instead it increases taxes on the wealthy. So it's a move from lump sum taxation to highly progressive taxation.

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942587/ ... -explained
#15046721
Rugoz wrote:Unsubstantiated claim.



Yes, incentivized to save money for themselves, not necessarily for their customers or society as a whole.



According to Warren's plan everybody will be covered at the same total cost of $52 trillion over the next 10 years. Without cost savings the total cost of Medicate for all is estimated to be $59 trillion, but she thinks she can reduce costs by $7 trillion. The difference is that people won't pay any insurance premiums whatsoever, instead it increases taxes on the wealthy. So it's a move from lump sum taxation to highly progressive taxation.

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942587/ ... -explained


Kind of but some of the measures are simply measures aimed at pro-US-middle class while making capital pay or make outsourcing harder which are masquerading as healthcare funding. Simply put, they are much much more than just a money grab. Its a smart way to put it. If she wins then she gets a clean hand to implement those changes.

It is actually a smart way to put. If it was just tax increase then big business would have a very easy time killing it. But if you mask it for something else you kinda kill 2 birds with one stone.

Ofcourse business is going batshit. It will drop profit margins and transfer those margins to the middle class. I still think that her proposals were very soft on financial capital. Keep the military spending, forget the immigration reform and basically "Build a wall" of sorts and increase the financial "system risk tax" to 0.3% instead of 0.1%. Wallstreet has it too easy.

What are they gonna do? Run away? Please, this boogieman is a strawman. Even wealthy individual do not do it. Moving Financial Capital is FAR, FAR more problematic compared to an individual moving.
#15046725
blackjack21 wrote:If she's the smartest person in DC, we're in serious trouble.

Pocahontas Warren is not the smartest. However, the Democrats have certainly got a lock on the dumbest.

blackjack21 wrote: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.

The majority voted for Hillary, but Trump was smart enough to win the states necessary to win by Electoral College votes.
#15046785
Rancid wrote:@Finfinder, what do you think about this:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/ray-dal ... taxes.html

Ray Dalio claims we will need to raise taxes in the future. I don't think this will be needed, we will just cut spending on things like medicare/medicade and the department of education.


It's a good question I will say that generation Xers feel like they kind of got a raw deal just when they were getting out of college we had a recession and then in the Obama years a very weak economy and taking a bath on realestate , honesty I think wages have stagnated for the Xers just when they are hittting their peak. They have been replaced by technology or cheaper labor. The next big thing is funding Xers retirement. They don't have it. Also I don't see any kind of bipartisanship happening in the near future to be agreeable to cut spending. So how can we possible cut cost when congress is dysfunctional. We are going to have to raise taxes but the problem is there is hardly anything left to be taxed anymore and its pretty bleak thinking we are going to get the d'd or r's to agree on anything. What happened to the Dems wanting a balanced budget they should hop on that idea.
#15046792
Finfinder wrote:It's a good question I will say that generation Xers feel like they kind of got a raw deal just when they were getting out of college we had a recession and then in the Obama years a very weak economy and taking a bath on realestate , honesty I think wages have stagnated for the Xers just when they are hittting their peak. They have been replaced by technology or cheaper labor. The next big thing is funding Xers retirement. They don't have it. Also I don't see any kind of bipartisanship happening in the near future to be agreeable to cut spending. So how can we possible cut cost when congress is dysfunctional. We are going to have to raise taxes but the problem is there is hardly anything left to be taxed anymore and its pretty bleak thinking we are going to get the d'd or r's to agree on anything. What happened to the Dems wanting a balanced budget they should hop on that idea.


Nothing to be taxed you say? :eh:

Image
#15046952
Finfinder wrote:
What you asked has been done by either parties candidates since Bush, not sure what you are trying to prove?



Trump has said he would resist being removed from office.

I don't think he would, but he would get a show and whine for the rest of his life that he was robbbed.

Actually, the big fall on monday was due to the hy[…]

Just watched a bit of the debate. I had a complete[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

I think you're confusing need with greed. Profs […]

Stocked up on food today. Hopefully it will just s[…]