Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[eric82oslo]

What is Democratic Underground?

[Holmes]

What is Democratic Underground?

An old left wing message board that started during the early Bush years.

[James Monroe]

Wow! Not a good look for Warren :/

It's too early to make bad assumptions about Warren touch with the base. The fact she's doing so well on the most prominent progressive forum is a gleaming sign she's going to be the challenger to beat in the primary.

[GlobeSoc]

Who care

[Crumpets]

She is such an obvious stooge that she might actually do exactly that.

It's really impossible for you to imagine that there might be genuine opposition to the political beliefs you hold, isn't it? Everyone I don't like is an agent of Putin

I'd like to believe that there are no human beings that genuinely oppose my position that a leader who gases his own people is scum and a war criminal and wouldn't touch him with hazmat gloves.
 

No one is arguing that point. That is not the topic. Everyone who attacks the candidates you like is immediately a "Putin stooge".

Not to be a nag, but I think the topic is "Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign."

[Donerail]

Wow! Not a good look for Warren :/

It's too early to make bad assumptions about Warren touch with the base. The fact she's doing so well on the most prominent progressive forum is a gleaming sign she's going to be the challenger to beat in the primary.

She's doing well with the kind of people who post on DU. Not good!

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Who care

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

lol Tulsi is definitely priming to attack Warren she said Kamala wasn't qualified to be CIC before the debates.

https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1177244572503724032

It makes sense, Harris is polling less than Buttigieg on average, and Warren has gained serious momentum. Buttigieg has also signaled that he's going to start going after Warren, and I have a feeling others will follow.

This clip doesn't show that she's going out of her way to target Warren. She was *asked* her opinion of Warren's qualifications.  People here read way too much into these kind of responses.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1177272549496913926

I welcome their hatred.

Not to be a nag, but I think the topic is "Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign."

On the other hand, **** Tulsi Gabbard.

[Frodo]

^^^^^ In case anyone still has doubts about Elizabeth Warren's progressive bonafides...

Some big bank executives and hedge fund managers have been stunned by Warren’s ascent, and they are primed to resist her.

“They will not support her. It would be like shutting down their industry,” an executive at one of the nation’s largest banks told CNBC, also speaking on condition of anonymity. This person said Warren’s policies could be worse for Wall Street than those of President Barack Obama, who signed the Dodd-Frank bank regulation bill in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown.

A hedge fund executive pointed to Trump’s tax cut as a reason why his colleagues would not contribute or vote for Warren if she wins the nomination.

“I think if she can show that the tax code of 2017 was basically nonsense and only helped corporations, Wall Street would not like the public thinking about that,” this executive said, also insisting on anonymity.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Wall Street abandoned Democrats 10 years ago because of the Dodd-Frank bill. All this talk about wanting to support a Democratic candidate, except Warren and Sanders, looks like a bunch of bull to me.

[GP270watch]

 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.

[Stranger in a strange land]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1177272549496913926

I welcome their hatred.

Not to be a nag, but I think the topic is "Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign."

On the other hand, **** Tulsi Gabbard.

She couldn't ask for better publicity on this. This will hurt her just as much as Wall Street's opposition to Trump hurt him in 2016.

[Xing]

Strange, hearing that Wall Street doesn't want Warren just makes me like her even more.

[GeneralMacArthur]

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).

[Rookie Yinzer]

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).

Thanks for the sneak preview of the attacks Biden (well, his surrogates because he could never articulate a point long enough to say this) will come out with when he's fighting for his political life in April of next year.

[GP270watch]

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 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.

 Your statement is complete nonsense. What is economically illiterate about regulating bad financial products? If you take a loan shouldn't the loan provider in clear language tell you the terms of the loan? If that financial institution breaks the law in servicing your loan, shouldn't they be fined? The CFPB has returned billions of dollars to millions of consumers since its inception and that's with half of the Federal government(Republicans) being firmly against it.

 There is no bigger brain drain than the one currently going into finance, tax law(tax avoidance), and hedge funds. They're scooping up massive amounts of talent to do nothing at all except make the rich even richer, this does nothing at all for the rest of the country. Instead of having a government that invests in emerging fields for the benefit of all its citizens, we have starved government research and grants. This leads to quantum computer geniuses and PhDs instead going to work at Wall Street to designs systems that allow them to execute trades in the microseconds before you and I can, making investment firms billions. Renaissance Technologies and other similar firms have more PhDs on staff than the math or economics department at top universities. I would call that the real brain drain threatening our country.

[McGovernForPrez]

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).

Dude, most of what you're saying is bad economics itself. The only objectively bad piece of economic policy she has is her position on trade. Government wealth distribution is a perfectly acceptable concept in economics. In particular your comment on U.S. brain drain is extremely wrong. A tax on the top 1% wouldnt have any significant impact on brain drain because most high skilled professions are not even close to being in the top 1% of earners. The top 1% is reserved exclusively for investors and the CEOs of massive corporations. Most of these people are actually paying far less in taxes than the doctors and engineers you claim Warren's policies would hurt.

[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.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Dude, most of what you're saying is bad economics itself. The only objectively bad piece of economic policy she has is her position on trade. Government wealth distribution is a perfectly acceptable concept in economics. In particular your comment on U.S. brain drain is extremely wrong. A tax on the top 1% wouldnt have any significant impact on brain drain because most high skilled professions are not even close to being in the top 1% of earners. The top 1% is reserved exclusively for investors and the CEOs of massive corporations. Most of these people are actually paying far less in taxes than the doctors and engineers you claim Warren's policies would hurt.

The "top 1%" is families with an income over $400,000.  That would include most mid-career doctors, lawyers, CPAs, and other post-graduate specialties, as well as most of our top employees in lucrative sectors such as tech and finance.  It isn't just CEOs.  If both spouses are equally-skilled and working, then you're looking at only $200,000 each, which is compensation after just a few years experience in those markets.

The set of populist villains -- big company CEOs, hedge fund managers and other wall street fat cats, pharma/insurance execs -- only encompasses maybe 10,000 people, most of whom are not villains.  Even if you took 100% of their money it wouldn't make much of a dent in the economy.  And most of them would just leave the country if you threatened to do that.

But Warren isn't explicitly targeting the top 1%.  Her net extends much wider.  She has to, because she's promised to only hurt wealthy people, but hitting the top 1% won't actually make that much difference because it's not that many people.  Most of Warren's policies will hit income earners in the top 10-20%.

As for brain drain, if the United States started taxing you at 50-60%, wouldn't you just move to Canada, where taxes on top income earners are similar to the Obama-era rates?  Keep 30% more of your money.  If you're making millions, that's a decision you definitely make.  Well, first you might try donating that 30% to Trump so Warren loses and you don't have to move.

Your statement is complete nonsense. What is economically illiterate about regulating bad financial products? If you take a loan shouldn't the loan provider in clear language tell you the terms of the loan? If that financial institution breaks the law in servicing your loan, shouldn't they be fined? The CFPB has returned billions of dollars to millions of consumers since its inception and that's with half of the Federal government(Republicans) being firmly against it.

None of this has anything to do with what I said.  I support Warren's work in the CFPB and in general going after bad financial products and shady credit, rating and auditing practices like those that led to the great recession.  But we got that with the Obama-Biden administration, and things have been pretty solid since.  You don't need an overzealous revenge-warrior to get it done.  You just need a sensible, practical politician like Obama or Biden who can work within the bounds of the system.

Thanks for the sneak preview of the attacks Biden (well, his surrogates because he could never articulate a point long enough to say this) will come out with when he's fighting for his political life in April of next year.

I don't think any Democrat will go here because they're scared of upsetting the base and being accused of being on the side of the big banks.  Even though it's true.  Congratulations Occupy, you successfully frightened Democrats out of telling the truth.

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.

None of this has anything to do with what I said.  This is a generic fantasy version of Warren, as opposed to the real Warren, as identified by her past actions and specific policies and rhetoric, that I recognize.

[GP270watch]

None of this has anything to do with what I said.  I support Warren's work in the CFPB and in general going after bad financial products and shady credit, rating and auditing practices like those that led to the great recession.  But we got that with the Obama-Biden administration, and things have been pretty solid since.  You don't need an overzealous revenge-warrior to get it done.  You just need a sensible, practical politician like Obama or Biden who can work within the bounds of the system.

 You sound so confused dude. We got the CFPB because of Warren and we never got her full vision of it because Republicans have watered it down and wouldn't confirm her. She didn't cry about it and say the system was rigged, she kept advocating and ran for the same body the refused her, the Senate and she won.

 You like her work and the fruits of her labor but don't trust her knowledge. Maybe that's your issue but you called her financial illiterate and provided no evidence that she is, just silly hot takes that her polices won't work. Your talking points sound like something out of FoxNews. That somehow we're punishing the rich, if they have to pay a few more taxes. It's complete nonsense. You talk about a us vs them mentality and you're on the wrong side, the rich have been waging economic warfare on the working and middle class for 50 years.

 Wake up and read the headlines, income inequality is at 50 year high. And Professor Warren not only studied and predicted this decades ago, she now has solutions to try and address it, so maybe you should start paying attention.

 

[Donerail]

only $200,000

[GP270watch]

Warren would levy a tax of 2% on households with net worth over $50 million and 3% on households with net worth over $1 billion.

 That's not the top 1%. That's not a doctor and lawyer who are married trying to live in an expensive city like San Francisco or NYC.

 We're talking about the Walmart heirs here, or the Mars family, or the Koch family. And this tax will make absolutely no tangible difference in their lives if it passes but would make an immeasurable difference in the lives or the working poor and middle class Americans.

[GeneralMacArthur]

only $200,000

That's like starting pay for a doctor.  You get two doctors married out of med school, boom!  Enemy.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Wall Street abandoned Democrats 10 years ago because of the Dodd-Frank bill. All this talk about wanting to support a Democratic candidate, except Warren and Sanders, looks like a bunch of bull to me.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hedge-fund-money-has-vastly-favored-clinton-over-trump-1469784601

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has received around $47.6 million from seven financial firms alone, compared to $19,000 donated to rival Donald Trump