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

[MR DARK BRANDON]

Elizabeth Warren is finally starting to feel the effects of running a campaign without giving any plans. She thought she could get a way with gauge shiny speeches and catchy slogans but she was wrong. That’s why voters are ditching her. They want solutions.

Correct me if I am wrong didn’t an annoyed supporter at a rally of hers in March say “when are you going to stop giving such flashy speeches and offer real solutions?”

Was that at her rally or someone else’s?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Elizabeth Warren is finally starting to feel the effects of running a campaign without giving any plans. She thought she could get a way with gauge shiny speeches and catchy slogans but she was wrong. That’s why voters are ditching her. They want solutions.

Correct me if I am wrong didn’t an annoyed supporter at a rally of hers in March say “when are you going to stop giving such flashy speeches and offer real solutions?”

Was that at her rally or someone else’s?

You have Yang in your signature and are talking about Warren not having any plans? Wow

[Continential]

Elizabeth Warren is finally starting to feel the effects of running a campaign without giving any plans. She thought she could get a way with gauge shiny speeches and catchy slogans but she was wrong. That’s why voters are ditching her. They want solutions.

Correct me if I am wrong didn’t an annoyed supporter at a rally of hers in March say “when are you going to stop giving such flashy speeches and offer real solutions?”

Was that at her rally or someone else’s?

You have Yang in your signature and are talking about Warren not having any plans? Wow

He has over 100 policy proposals on yang2020.com. The most of any candidate. Wtf

And look at elizabethwarren.com/plans for her proposals if you think Warren doesn't have any policy proposals.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Warren has no foreign policy experience whatsoever.  Every Prez nominee has had some: Kerry, Obama, Hilary and Biden who killed Bin Laden and Biden blunts Bernie's and Bloomberg's Jewish roots. Biden is close to Israel

Is this a joke?  She’s been in the Senate for 7 years and sits on the Armed Services committee.  She certainly has more foreign policy experience than Obama did (or any of the last four presidents).

She has some experience, but Obama played much more of a leadership role on foreign policy initiatives during his time in the Senate than Warren has.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Then all three of the most recent challengers to incumbents are flip-floppers from Massachusetts with nice hair. (John Kerry and Mitt Romney fit this description, and so does Warren)

[Pericles]

Warren isn't comparable to Kerry and Romney with regards to flip-flopping.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Warren isn't comparable to Kerry and Romney with regards to flip-flopping.

Only Gaafar Nimeiry was comparable to Romney with regards to flip-flopping.

[Xing]

FFS, if Warren is a “flip-flopper”, what candidate running isn’t? (Maybe Sanders, but that’s about it) This “inauthentic” BS is getting old. Warren might be many things, but “phony” isn’t one of them.

[ProudModerate2]

She has nice hair?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I've said before, the main problem with Warren's tax "plan" is the sheer impracticality of it, without even getting to consideration of the potential economic effects.  As currently formulated, her "wealth tax" is an ad valorem property tax and there's lengthy precedent that such taxes are considered direct taxes under the Constitution and thus would require its collection be apportioned among the States, which which means that to be Constitutional, the tax rates would have to be higher for those living in poor States than those living in wealthy States.  Taxing unrealized capital gains is from an accounting standpoint, sheer idiocy, and all it does is rob the future of tax revenue to collect it now.  I haven't bothered to examine the economic results of her tax "plan" because it is so impractical that it ruins the assertion that she's a thoughtful wonk with practical plans for the problems we face.  There are other ways to sock the wealthy without running foul of these practical problems, such as reinvigorating the estate tax, raising income tax rates for the top brackets, excise taxes on luxury items such as private planes and yachts that are not assessed on an ad valorem basis, to name three.

Her wealth tax is a campaign gimmick that nevertheless gives us a clear insight into her priorities and basic approach to tax policy.  "Two Cents" is a lot easier to chant at rallies than "Reinvigorate the estate tax, raise income tax rates for the top brackets, and excise taxes on luxury items." It's a mistake to think of her plans as if they were actual legislative bills.

Because of course, the fact she can't figure out how to make proposals that aren't gimmicks into popular proposals, won't have any impact on her ability to get proposals that aren't gimmicks passed into law.  </sarcasm>

It does no good to have a President who is for all the right things if they lack the ability to make them happen.

Even tho he was personally a POS, John Edwards' "Two Americas" shows he was much better at politics than Elizabeth Warren's "Two Cents".  Had he been elected, his pitch would have allowed him to pivot to plans that would work better than the ones he was proposing, while Warren's ties her to a constitutionally impossible plan that offers no chance to pivot to something that might actually work without building from ground zero.

[RI]

Warren isn't a flip-flopper. She's a serial liar.

[Grassroots]

Unpopular(?) opinion: Warren's decline will continue and Sanders will be the progressive candidate come the primaries.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I've said before, the main problem with Warren's tax "plan" is the sheer impracticality of it, without even getting to consideration of the potential economic effects.  As currently formulated, her "wealth tax" is an ad valorem property tax and there's lengthy precedent that such taxes are considered direct taxes under the Constitution and thus would require its collection be apportioned among the States, which which means that to be Constitutional, the tax rates would have to be higher for those living in poor States than those living in wealthy States.  Taxing unrealized capital gains is from an accounting standpoint, sheer idiocy, and all it does is rob the future of tax revenue to collect it now.  I haven't bothered to examine the economic results of her tax "plan" because it is so impractical that it ruins the assertion that she's a thoughtful wonk with practical plans for the problems we face.  There are other ways to sock the wealthy without running foul of these practical problems, such as reinvigorating the estate tax, raising income tax rates for the top brackets, excise taxes on luxury items such as private planes and yachts that are not assessed on an ad valorem basis, to name three.

I’m not sure what “lengthy precedent” you are talking about.  There’s basically one Supreme Court case from the late 19th century decided 5-4 that might suggest such as tax might be unconstitutional.  Beyond that, the Court has typically sided with upholding taxes that might or might not qualify as “direct taxes” (though all of this precedent is very old).  I think the consensus of the legal community is now that Pollock was wrongly decided anyway.  Any even if a conservative Supreme Court today were inclined to strike the tax down, this could of course be reversed by fairly modest court packing.

For those saying this won’t work in the US because it hasn’t worked in various European nations, remember that the US is much more effective at taxing American residents of foreign countries and ex-pats than most other nations.

Pollock has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a wealth tax, as it's specifically not a tax on income, so it doesn't matter much whether it was rightly or wrongly decided. The most directly relevant SCOTUS decision is Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340 (1945) as referenced in Murphy v. IRS, 493 F.3d 170 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a capitation, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, (2) a tax upon real property, and (3) a tax upon personal property. See Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 352, 66 S.Ct. 178, 90 L.Ed. 116 (1945) ("Congress may tax real estate or chattels if the tax is apportioned")

Since the wealth tax is clearly a tax upon property, both real and personal, it falls within the scope of a direct tax.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

She is associated with MA politicians who are deemed as flip floppers like Romney and Kerry.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Warren isn't comparable to Kerry and Romney with regards to flip-flopping.

Well, there's claiming to be a Native American despite having so little DNA that claiming such would be wrong. (Although being born in Oklahoma, a state with a large Native population, she could have been confuesed or raised to believe as such.)

[Progressive Pessimist]

Unpopular(?) opinion: Warren's decline will continue and Sanders will be the progressive candidate come the primaries.

I'm still not so sure about that, but I could definitely see one of them dropping out and making a deal to support the other at some point if Biden's delegate lead gets close to insurmountable. So I guess it would be unpopular.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I've noticed this too...minus the hair part. Hopefully she can break the curse if she's nominated.

And in what way is she a flip-flopper? Because she used to be a Republican until the early 1990's?

[Beet]

Warren is the most consistent and authentic candidate running. She's been crusading on economic populism since the 1980's, when studying bankruptcy records.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

As I've said before, the main problem with Warren's tax "plan" is the sheer impracticality of it, without even getting to consideration of the potential economic effects.  As currently formulated, her "wealth tax" is an ad valorem property tax and there's lengthy precedent that such taxes are considered direct taxes under the Constitution and thus would require its collection be apportioned among the States, which which means that to be Constitutional, the tax rates would have to be higher for those living in poor States than those living in wealthy States.  Taxing unrealized capital gains is from an accounting standpoint, sheer idiocy, and all it does is rob the future of tax revenue to collect it now.  I haven't bothered to examine the economic results of her tax "plan" because it is so impractical that it ruins the assertion that she's a thoughtful wonk with practical plans for the problems we face.  There are other ways to sock the wealthy without running foul of these practical problems, such as reinvigorating the estate tax, raising income tax rates for the top brackets, excise taxes on luxury items such as private planes and yachts that are not assessed on an ad valorem basis, to name three.

I’m not sure what “lengthy precedent” you are talking about.  There’s basically one Supreme Court case from the late 19th century decided 5-4 that might suggest such as tax might be unconstitutional.  Beyond that, the Court has typically sided with upholding taxes that might or might not qualify as “direct taxes” (though all of this precedent is very old).  I think the consensus of the legal community is now that Pollock was wrongly decided anyway.  Any even if a conservative Supreme Court today were inclined to strike the tax down, this could of course be reversed by fairly modest court packing.

For those saying this won’t work in the US because it hasn’t worked in various European nations, remember that the US is much more effective at taxing American residents of foreign countries and ex-pats than most other nations.

Pollock has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a wealth tax, as it's specifically not a tax on income, so it doesn't matter much whether it was rightly or wrongly decided. The most directly relevant SCOTUS decision is Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340 (1945) as referenced in Murphy v. IRS, 493 F.3d 170 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a capitation, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, (2) a tax upon real property, and (3) a tax upon personal property. See Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 352, 66 S.Ct. 178, 90 L.Ed. 116 (1945) ("Congress may tax real estate or chattels if the tax is apportioned")

Since the wealth tax is clearly a tax upon property, both real and personal, it falls within the scope of a direct tax.

Fernandez is a case about the estate tax.  You could argue that an estate tax is closer to a wealth tax than the income tax is, but in that case the argument runs in favor of the constitutionality of the wealth tax, because Fernandez upholds the estate tax.

Suggesting that a case upholding the estate tax has precedential value toward striking down a wealth tax at the very least misunderstands the difference between the holding of a case and dicta. 

Pollack does include a significant discussion of whether a tax on real versus personal property constitutes a direct tax.  And it comes down 5-4 on the side of both being direct taxes.  So this does seem like much more relevant precedent.   But again, it is a very narrow, very old, and still tangentially related opinion.

It is very much an open question whether a wealth tax is constitutional, with reasonable arguments on both sides and very little precedent.  Honestly, whether Warren’s wealth tax was upheld or not would likely be determined by her ability to shape the composition of the court prior to the decision.

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1200367457916968961

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

More (opinion piece) 1% hand-wringing about the "dangers of Warren" over at the NYT:

The Danger of Elizabeth Warren.

I'm already a Warren supporter, but the MSM makes her and Sanders look better every day.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I've said before, the main problem with Warren's tax "plan" is the sheer impracticality of it, without even getting to consideration of the potential economic effects.  As currently formulated, her "wealth tax" is an ad valorem property tax and there's lengthy precedent that such taxes are considered direct taxes under the Constitution and thus would require its collection be apportioned among the States, which which means that to be Constitutional, the tax rates would have to be higher for those living in poor States than those living in wealthy States.  Taxing unrealized capital gains is from an accounting standpoint, sheer idiocy, and all it does is rob the future of tax revenue to collect it now.  I haven't bothered to examine the economic results of her tax "plan" because it is so impractical that it ruins the assertion that she's a thoughtful wonk with practical plans for the problems we face.  There are other ways to sock the wealthy without running foul of these practical problems, such as reinvigorating the estate tax, raising income tax rates for the top brackets, excise taxes on luxury items such as private planes and yachts that are not assessed on an ad valorem basis, to name three.

I’m not sure what “lengthy precedent” you are talking about.  There’s basically one Supreme Court case from the late 19th century decided 5-4 that might suggest such as tax might be unconstitutional.  Beyond that, the Court has typically sided with upholding taxes that might or might not qualify as “direct taxes” (though all of this precedent is very old).  I think the consensus of the legal community is now that Pollock was wrongly decided anyway.  Any even if a conservative Supreme Court today were inclined to strike the tax down, this could of course be reversed by fairly modest court packing.

For those saying this won’t work in the US because it hasn’t worked in various European nations, remember that the US is much more effective at taxing American residents of foreign countries and ex-pats than most other nations.

Pollock has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a wealth tax, as it's specifically not a tax on income, so it doesn't matter much whether it was rightly or wrongly decided. The most directly relevant SCOTUS decision is Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340 (1945) as referenced in Murphy v. IRS, 493 F.3d 170 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a capitation, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, (2) a tax upon real property, and (3) a tax upon personal property. See Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 352, 66 S.Ct. 178, 90 L.Ed. 116 (1945) ("Congress may tax real estate or chattels if the tax is apportioned")

Since the wealth tax is clearly a tax upon property, both real and personal, it falls within the scope of a direct tax.

Fernandez is a case about the estate tax.  You could argue that an estate tax is closer to a wealth tax than the income tax is, but in that case the argument runs in favor of the constitutionality of the wealth tax, because Fernandez upholds the estate tax.

Suggesting that a case upholding the estate tax has precedential value toward striking down a wealth tax at the very least misunderstands the difference between the holding of a case and dicta. 

Pollack does include a significant discussion of whether a tax on real versus personal property constitutes a direct tax.  And it comes down 5-4 on the side of both being direct taxes.  So this does seem like much more relevant precedent.   But again, it is a very narrow, very old, and still tangentially related opinion.

It is very much an open question whether a wealth tax is constitutional, with reasonable arguments on both sides and very little precedent.  Honestly, whether Warren’s wealth tax was upheld or not would likely be determined by her ability to shape the composition of the court prior to the decision.

Federal case law has consistently treated the estate tax as an excise, not a direct tax. Even if it hadn't, it could reasonably be counted as an income tax in my opinion, which thanks to the 16th amendment, renders moot any consideration of whether it is a direct tax.

If Warren has to wait for a favorable court to implement her tax plans, she'll have to wait until at least after the 2022 mid-terms, if ever.  Democrats will need a lot of luck to flip the Senate in 2020, and even if they manage it, I can't see them having anywhere near enough of a solid majority to engage in any of the hopeful fantasies for reshaping the Federal judiciary by adding additional judgeships at various levels.

Granted, there are no direct cases concerning Federal property taxes, in large part because the Federal government has never implemented one, in large part because of general consensus that such taxes are direct taxes and Congress has shied away from enacting such taxes because of the complexity involved in collecting an apportioned tax. However, quite a few cases have considered what is or is not a direct tax so as to resolve the question of whether a particular tax is one. While strictly speaking, such decisions are indeed dicta for any tax other than the particular tax in question, it nevertheless is the fact that they have served as a way for judges to discuss the generic question of "what is a direct tax?" The results of that discussion are neatly summarized in Murphy. I certainly have seen no reasoning anywhere to suggest that a property tax of any kind could be considered a duty, impost, or excise subject to the requirement of uniform application instead of apportionment among the States.

[Gracile]

Warren is having a town hall tonight in Edgewater, Chicago, and from what I can tell it looks like it will be pretty full. That's not surprising as this is one part of the city I expect her to have a good showing in the primary.

Ahead of the event, Warren also announced that she has received the endorsement of Rep. Jan Schakowsky of IL-09. This is her first endorsement from a member of IL's congressional delegation:

https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/1200877688187236353

[GoTfan]

More (opinion piece) 1% hand-wringing about the "dangers of Warren" over at the NYT:

The Danger of Elizabeth Warren.

I'm already a Warren supporter, but the MSM makes her and Sanders look better every day.

At what point are these people going to realise that these are the exact type of stories that Sanders and Warren want?

[GP270watch]

https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1200367457916968961

 This is why you can't sleep on Warren.