Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Beet]

Again for the millionth time, the candidate that Wall Street fears is Elizabeth Warren. They don't fear Bernie and never have because they don't think he can get anything done even if he was elected. Warren scares the crap out of them because she's already been a thorn in their side and with the power of the Presidency they know she will go after them.

 The candidate that has investment bankers and hedge fund managers shaking in their boots is the one America needs.

They fear her because she appears to be economically illiterate.  She wants to break up major corporations, eliminate entire sectors of the American economy, continue the Trump trade policy of high tariffs and damaging trade wars, and impose such choking, punishing regulations that companies would not want to operate in the United States.

She also wants to introduce massive brain drain by imposing punishing, vengeful taxes on the 1%, forcing our high-skilled labor to flee the country.  Not to mention her unconstitutional wealth tax that will lead to a dramatic spike in offshoring investments+savings.

Her justifications for these actions are based not on sound economic principles but on simple us-vs-them populist rhetoric.  She is motivated not by economic justice or opportunity but by revenge.  This makes her an irrational actor, and an unpredictable, irrational actor with power is what Wall Street fears (not Trump since he never actually does anything).

FTFY.

They fear her because she is literate. She is not going to be intimidated by people claiming that they understand economics and finance and she doesn't. She understands economics well enough to call them out on the conflict between business interests and society's interests, and knows that the government's job is to represent the latter.

Warren is not an anti-capitalist. Her view is that corporations can thrive and have a role in society, on a coequal basis with unions, which represents labor, and government, which represents the community. That each of these interests is subordinate to the interest of the people living in society and they should work together, but this can only happen if they balance each other out - just as the three branches of government - Executive, Congress and Judicial are Coequal. If Congress and the judicial branch abdicated responsibility, the presidency would run wild and become a dictatorship. The problem is that Labor has been weakened and Government has been captured, corporations are running wild, and this is not how capitalism should work.

[Beet]

She's saying that if the companies signed a non-binding pledge, they should have no problem with a statutory requirement to live up to their own stated goals, in effect pointing out their hypocrisy. But of course if you're determined to twist into something bad, you can make up that she's saying a non-binding pledge is great and the whole tweet was just about congratulating CEOs.

[Beet]

Warren on the advice to son question:

https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1188541628580892672

[Beet]

If it's Donald Trump vs. Elizabeth Warren, his stronger base could be the key to victory

Despite having 17 candidates to choose from, the Democratic establishment politicos are apparently worried that the party’s 2020 presidential field seems to be winnowing to four, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts showing the most momentum of those at the top. And they are right to be concerned: Warren’s base — to the extent she has one — is much weaker than President Donald Trump’s, and she faces nagging questions about her ability to inspire those other elements of the Democratic base that the party nominee will need in fall 2020.

The eventual Democratic pick will almost certainly run up against a virtual lock on support for Trump among GOP voters. According to Gallup polls taken every two weeks, Trump’s support among Republicans hovers in the high 80s to low 90s. And those numbers haven’t been affected by the impeachment inquiry by House Democrats against Trump over the Ukraine whistleblower affair. Paradoxically, Trump campaign officials are using the Capitol Hill proceedings to fire up the president’s bedrock of support to an even higher degree than when he took office in January 2017. Trump’s base — broadly composed of white evangelicals, the non-college educated and rural residents — is staying loyal to him in the face of impeachment.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/if-it-s-donald-trump-vs-elizabeth-warren-his-stronger-ncna1071071

This NBC article reads like a memo for an opposing campaign. She has by far the most donors for a first-time campaign, raised the most money for a first-time candidate, has gotten the biggest rally for a first-time candidate, and her favorable ratings are in line with her name recognition. She is in the same tier as a former Vice President and someone who got 45% of the primary vote in the last election.

[Beet]

Anyone see this poll? https://www.msubillings.edu/cas/nams/polls/2019%20Mountain%20States%20Poll%20Report.pdf

Warren 82 - Biden 0 (WY)

Yeah, it was a poll of 14 people. Yes, literally 14.

Not something that could be considered scientific by any reasonable measure. Maybe the people they asked were all in the same family?

I know. It's bizarre that something like this would even be released.

Not to defend this trash poll, but how do you get 82% from a sample size of 14?

[Beet]

I'm just getting to this because I didn't have time to read and digest the whole plan and some of the commentary at work.

This plan is really, really good and if enacted would save lives. First of all it gets to the goal of universal coverage for everyone. No more health treatment being missed because you couldn't afford it. No more premiums, copays or deductibles. Secondly, no more worrying about who is in-network and who is out-of-network. You go and see the doctor and get the treatments that are best for you, period. This will drastically simplify the health care system for everyone. Third, providers will save a huge among of money on lower administrative costs that are currently spent dealing with insurance companies.

Shifting the employer contribution straight into Medicare is genius. It minimizes the disruption to the economy and highlights the cost we are currently paying for private health insurance - not only workers but companies. Meanwhile, average workers actually get a raise because they no longer have to pay the employee contribution.

Some of the criticisms I've seen here are overwrought. For one thing the quibbling over whether it's a tax - who cares? Overall costs for the middle class will go down. That has been Warren's point all along. Basing an argument on semantics is political scaremongering is usually a sign of an agenda. The idea that huge corporations will suddenly find it profitable to break up into dozens or hundreds of 50-person firms all contracting with each other does not seem credible to me - if that was the case it would have happened after the Obamacare mandate. Putting immigration reform in there is brilliant because critics will attack it and inadvertently raise awareness that immigration reform would save money - while it only covers 2% of her plan and is not really necessary to be in there. The notion that "it will never pass" is hardly a new argument. But the point of a democracy is to put what you want out there and then run on it to demonstrate public support. Over time, this can result in real changes in policy. You don't get change by pre-emptively reducing the scope of your proposals and never even talking about what your end goal. Finally, the people arguing over the projections of her numbers - fair, as she admits herself no one can predict the future. But it's worth noting she starts here from the Urban Institute estimate, which is hardly a far-left group, as it has taken money from insurance companies and has people like Bush economic chairman Greg Mankiw (no fan of Warren) on the board.

Bottom line is - after this, Warren is the only candidate in the race who supports Medicare for All and a fully fleshed out plan to pay for it. This will get us towards lower costs, universal coverage, and a simplified system for everyone. And this is not even "her" issue. Or at least not until today.

[Beet]

I love the optics of Warren’s healthcare plan, but I’m still concerned with the thousands of corporate money she transferred from her Senate to Presidential campaign.

Yes, she used the "Elizabeth Warren Action Fund" to launder money (I think through the MA Democratic party) back to her campaign to get around the $2700 donation limit in her Senate race.  That fund has donations as high as $15.4k and totals almost $5m.

https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?committee_id=C00631861&two_year_transaction_period=2018&cycle=2018&line_number=F3X-11AI&data_type=processed

This was a joint fundraising committee, where part of the money goes to the Party and part to the candidate. Sanders has done the same thing:

Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign has signed a joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee, the DNC confirmed to POLITICO.

The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559

Re: Some of the pieces above.

I'm seeing a lot of criticism of Warren's plan that, while it may be fair, is essentially right-wing in nature, such as that (1) Imposing flat costs on corporations for their labor force will disincentivize hiring, or (2) raising taxes will go against the "race to the bottom" of different countries to become more corporate-friendly to multinationals, or (as in the NY Mag piece) that taxing billionaires' wealth at 6% will disincentivize people from creating billion-dollar businesses. Whether one agrees with these critiques or not, they're based in the same logic that the right-wing has been using for decades against progressive reforms, so people buying into them should be aware of that.

The Charles Blahous piece above is interesting- he accuses her of double counting on administrative expenses. It's true that there are two areas of her plan where reduced administrative expenses come into play. But one of them is insurers and the other is providers- not the same thing. He also hand-waves away a number of the components of her plan such as reducing tax evasion (even though her estimate is conservative in the amount that can be reduced). He argues that "if it could have been done it would have", ignoring that she has specific reforms in her plan to reduce tax evasion. He also lazily says she's committed her wealth tax to different priorities (linking to a webpage from June), but ignores her new proposed billionaires' tax. All together it doesn't seem like an objective analysis, which is what you'd expect from a Koch-funded think tank. Ironically, Matt Bruenig (no fan of Warren) found that Blahous' own estimate of M4All national health expenditures found an overall $2 trillion savings.

[Beet]

The reason the IRS is targeting poors is that their tax returns take less effort to audit and thus on purely fiscal grounds, it's the most effective use of their limited budget. To go after more of the more complicated returns will require Congressional action to restore funding for audits.

 Republicans created this scenario, this is what they want by design. Let their wealthy donors skate and punish the poor.

 There is much more money to be recovered and bigger penalties if you go after rich tax cheats. The impotence to do so is a political will problem and not truly a fiscal one.

Agreed, but that's all the more reason not to use hypothetical numbers from improved tax compliance as a funding source for any spending (or tax cut) proposal.

Her other proposed ways to pay for M4A are also problematic and/or simply idiotic.

Conversely, putting tax compliance in the plan genius because it highlights the massive revenue lost from rich tax cheats, as you and GP270 have been doing just now. This is all stuff that we should be doing anyway.

[Beet]

Black women are a decently sized voting bloc who are 98% Democratic. Turning them out is going to be important for any Democrat. I think we would all be better off with less racially polarized politics, yes. But as it is, this group has earned the respect they get from Democratic politicians.

[Beet]

Ralph Nader has written a letter to the NY Times on Warren:

No wonder that Elizabeth Warren’s conservative proposals have Wall Street rattled. She offers comprehensive law and order to bring under control the corporate crime wave, the reckless speculation with “other people’s money” and the violations of fiduciary duties to their clients.

For years before and after the 2008 self-inflicted Wall Street crash — steeped in greed and conflicts of interest — the undertaxed financial firms have expected immunities and taxpayer bailouts, weaker regulation and diminished disclosures.

What Senator Warren is telling them is that the sheriff is coming to town. The Wall Streeters should not be above the law any longer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/letters/warren-ralph-nader.html