Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[GeneralMacArthur]

Warren's wealth tax, as a recurring tax on a single fortune, is designed to eliminate wealth entirely.

You don’t think having $1 billion constitutes “wealth”?  Even if the tax were 100% of all wealth over $1 billion, that would still leave billionaires with $1 billion.  Which to me sounds like a whole of wealth.  And thus it wouldn’t be eliminating wealth entirely.

  It would be analogous to "you only need $70,000, so whether you make $100,000 or $150,000 or $500,000 I'm going to take all your money to make sure you only have $70,000.  And you have no right to complain because I know what's best for you and I say $70,000 is all you need."

It’s not analogous to this because having $70,000 is not analogous to have $1 billion. 

Again, you are essentially saying that her tax is OK, where others aren't, because $1 billion, or some arbitrary threshold, is "enough" wealth and nobody should have more.

That's what you're saying when you say that it's OK to eliminate all wealth over $1B but not over $70,000 (as in my example).  What is the difference between the two?  You think people may need wealth over $70K but nobody needs more than $1B.

It's literally you (and Warren) saying "I know what's best for you."  It's saying "you don't need any more than $1B so I'm going to take the rest."

And if I do want more than $1B because I want to start a giant foundation to cure diseases in Africa, and that costs more than $1B?  Well, I guess I'm wrong for wanting to do that, because Warren knows best and Warren says I don't need that money.

[AtorBoltox]

If the anti-Warren forces think passionately defending the rights of billionaires to hoard wealth is going to damage her then they're seriously deluded.

[GeneralMacArthur]

If the anti-Warren forces think passionately defending the rights of billionaires to hoard wealth is going to damage her then they're seriously deluded.

And here we go again with "lol billionaire defender" that term must have been focus-grouped to death because it's on every talking points memo this week.

It's not "hoarding" to keep money that you already earned and paid taxes on.  That's your money.  Continually taxing the same money again and again until it disappears entirely is wrong.  And Warren's argument about this is the most populist thing ever.  "Look, this bad thing I want to do won't affect you, it will just affect somebody else, and that person is part of the bad group, they're the people you should hate, they're the people you should want bad things to happen to."  And anyone who opposes her must be on the side of the bad group.

It's populism 101.  And Warren pretends to be an intellectual.  What a f***ing disappointment she's been.

[GoTfan]

If the anti-Warren forces think passionately defending the rights of billionaires to hoard wealth is going to damage her then they're seriously deluded.

And here we go again with "lol billionaire defender" that term must have been focus-grouped to death because it's on every talking points memo this week.

It's not "hoarding" to keep money that you already earned and paid taxes on.  That's your money.  Continually taxing the same money again and again until it disappears entirely is wrong.  And Warren's argument about this is the most populist thing ever.  "Look, this bad thing I want to do won't affect you, it will just affect somebody else, and that person is part of the bad group, they're the people you should hate, they're the people you should want bad things to happen to."  And anyone who opposes her must be on the side of the bad group.

It's populism 101.  And Warren pretends to be an intellectual.  What a f***ing disappointment she's been.

It's actually simple economics. Billionaires are more likely to keep money instead of spend it because they have everything. Middle and working class people are more likely to spend it because they need basic things like food, which means if they get a raise in the minimum wage which could be partially funded by a wealth tax, you have more money in the economy.

[izixs]

And if I do want more than $1B because I want to start a giant foundation to cure diseases in Africa, and that costs more than $1B?  Well, I guess I'm wrong for wanting to do that, because Warren knows best and Warren says I don't need that money.

I want to zoom in on this specific thing. This right here.

Philanthropists often claim to be wanting to do so-and-so wonderful thing. But there are generally strings attached to that help. You must meet their specific standards and requirements. Sometimes these standards are reasonable. Sometimes they're utterly ridiculous. And in the way things are presently, there is check on demands like always buy your supplies from this company I have a financial interest in or hire this specific person who's a friend of mine but who has no experience or ability to handle this kind of work. What more, the individual driving the funding in this case may seek to tackle the problem based on their specific individual perception of the issue and prioritize the methods and techniques that will work if their views are actually true. And even in the face of failure, without an ultimate check on their efforts, they can continue to flush their money down the drain in a wasteful fashion.

And sure you might say 'oh but its their money' and all the rest. But if you are actually arguing specifically that the ultra rich should have untold billions just because they might decide to spend it on something to help somebody, then you should be very concerned about them wasting their money in such efforts and not actually helping people, even if they think they are. Because if they're not helping people, well, your whole argument that money through private citizens to foundations to solve problems is the best possible thing... doesn't make any sense.

If that's not what your arguing, then... you shouldn't have said what you did. Because you don't actually care about curing diseases overseas, you just wanted to toss an argument into this situation without actually believing it.

So! Given there are zero checks on wasteful spending (even before getting into the corruption that plagues some foundations) due to slanted ideologies and weird strings attached, we should really be asking our selves, is there a better way?

Heck yeah there is! But it requires people paying taxes to fund relief efforts, disease research, and humanitarian aid in those same places. Assistance that is in the public, with checks on those making the decisions (you know, that whole democracy thing), and that which can be split in a sensical fashion between differing priorities without having to obey the wishes of one person.

So yeah, the poor billionaires won't get to buy his way to being loved oh no argument is weaker than you think. Plus, wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to get lucky for some rich dude to think our problem mattered before we were offered a way not to suffer and die?

Oh hey, you know if you do happen to have $1,000,000,000 laying around, you can do something to help children in Africa right now! You can spend that money to lobby the government to do it! And for a lot less cost to yourself to boot! And if you're successful you could get the whole bill covered with just the cost of lobbying. Surprise!

[YE]

What's the big deal that a billionaire is paying over time tens of billions or a substantial sum of their wealth in taxes? The rich will still be rich. It's one thing to argue that at a certain level, a high tax becomes detrimental because it pushes taxpayers out of the country to the point where revenues drop. It's another to complain about billionaires being taxed too much because muh taxation is evil.

Because at the root of it, it's Warren saying "I'll decide how much money is enough money, and you'll be happy with it because I know what's best.  I'm gonna take the rest of your money and you won't miss it."

Isn't that root of all progressive taxation in general? That the government is taking X amount of money because it is deciding earning Y is enough? Your point is basically a libertarian argument that is often used to argue for a flat tax. I don't find the argument you are making to hold much validity in that grand scheme of things because at the end of the day, it's the job of the government to ensure a framework for a sustainable standard of living because the natural free market lazzaire fare state is not sufficient, and in order to achieve that, it costs money. And IMO there is no better way to raise money than by taxing rich people. We can disagree on how the tax code should be assembled to maximize this, but I don't really have much sympathy for people who would still be rich after a wealth tax when 30 million people don't have health insurance, half the country works paycheck to paycheck, student debt is at like $1.4 trillion, urban schools are underfunded, and decent paying jobs are being outsourced to other countries or automated.

I get what you're saying here but to summarize, we're stuck with two choices (and this argument is more broad than simply whether a 2% wealth tax gets implemented or not).
A. Let individuals keep their money.
B. Provide more of a social safety net.

I'm willing to sacrifice a few billions of dollars being collected from the rich over extended periods of time (wealth tax or not, though the wealth tax certainty accomplishes this) for the common good. The rich will still be relatively rich.  

No, progressive taxation is different.  The government isn't saying "$70,000 is enough for you, you don't need $100,000".  It's "we're taking 30% of what you make, go make as much as you like and keep the rest.  If you want $100,000, go earn $142,000."

Warren's wealth tax, as a recurring tax on a single fortune, is designed to eliminate wealth entirely.  So she's saying you can't have as much as you like, any wealth you have over her "all the wealth you could ever need" threshold is bad and she's going to eventually take it all.  It would be analogous to "you only need $70,000, so whether you make $100,000 or $150,000 or $500,000 I'm going to take all your money to make sure you only have $70,000.  And you have no right to complain because I know what's best for you and I say $70,000 is all you need."

I mean under the assumption, wealth was static, I'd say you have a point in theory (granted, you're making a massive assumption that said plan would stay inplace forever if it were to somehow pass as well) but that's obviously not the case. Rather, the idea is to reduce wealth inequality (which yes is a bigger problem than income inequality).  

Regardless, my broader point applies. I'd rather have a wealth tax than the middle class be taxed in order to protect and expand the social safety net.

[YE]

And if I do want more than $1B because I want to start a giant foundation to cure diseases in Africa, and that costs more than $1B?  Well, I guess I'm wrong for wanting to do that, because Warren knows best and Warren says I don't need that money.

Or maybe if we passed a wealth tax, the federal government can help do that better?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Pete Buttigieg or Warren are indirectly benefiting from the impeachment of Trump, due to Biden corruption,  just like Sanders was benefiting from the Clinton email scandal. It will very hard for Biden to win, but the hard core Southern states now as his backup plan. He may win SC, TN, MS, but that's it. Sunbelt states will go with Warren, like NC, VA, AZ and FL, NC had the Transgender bathroom bill; thus, making Warren the Nominee 😍

[Lambsbread]

NC had the Transgender bathroom bill; thus, making Warren the Nominee 😍

Damn, I knew I should've taken the parlay bet on "NC Transgender bathroom bill leading to Elizabeth Warren becoming the nominee"

[Libertas Vel Mors]

People seem to pretty blatantly misunderstand economics here. If you put money in the bank or save it, you are helping to grow the economy and create opportunity, not "hoarding". Billionares aren't just scrooge mcducks with big vaults of money, they're putting it in banks and investments that create jobs and help lift up quality of life and opportunity.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I suspect Warren's wealth tax is mostly a campaign tool.  She knows it would be struck down by SCOTUS even if it did make it through Congress, but "Two Cents" is a simple concept that's easy to rally behind, and it really does clearly convey the values that define her campaign.  My guess is, whomever the next Democratic president is, we'll probably end up with some kind of increased progressive payroll tax, treating capital income that people earn from their own firm as wages.  And if the wealth tax does get passed and the Court strikes it down, that's the kind of plutocratic move that might prompt a broader reform of the judiciary.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bernie, not Warren said he wont expand the Crts, if the CRT did this, it would force Dems to expand the Crts. The wealthy have too much money, and it's not getting better, between the rich and poor

[Donerail]

Hope the billionaire defenders in this thread are at least getting paid for their service

[izixs]

Hope the billionaire defenders in this thread are at least getting paid for their service

I'm doubtful. But if they are, those footing the bill should probably find better trolls.

[Orser67]

Warren talking about a two-step process for passing Medicare for all:

Senator Elizabeth Warren vowed on Friday to pass major health care legislation in her first 100 days as president, unveiling a new, detailed plan to significantly expand public health insurance coverage as a first step, and promising to pass a “Medicare for all” system by the end of her third year in office that would cover all Americans.

Ms. Warren has not previously outlined a timeline for enacting Medicare for all. In essence, Friday’s plan is a detailed road map for eventually achieving that goal, which would create a single government-run health program and end private insurance coverage. Her proposal would move people into that system gradually — in a way she hopes would build public support for a full-fledged single-payer program — while temporarily preserving the employer-based insurance system that covers most working-age adults today.

[Pericles]

The deadline of year 3 suggests that Warren might not prioritize healthcare over other issues as recent Presidents have done (and it backfired for everyone who did so, even Obama who narrowly passed healthcare reform). This is a bit concerning for Medicare for All supporters, but is probably a good move politically and if she uses the first two years well on less toxic issues that nevertheless have a big positive impact it might be better for Democrats and progressives in the long-term.

[Cinemark]

The deadline of year 3 suggests that Warren might not prioritize healthcare over other issues as recent Presidents have done (and it backfired for everyone who did so, even Obama who narrowly passed healthcare reform). This is a bit concerning for Medicare for All supporters, but is probably a good move politically and if she uses the first two years well on less toxic issues that nevertheless have a big positive impact it might be better for Democrats and progressives in the long-term.

Yeah, she's basically taking the early Mayor Pete approach, i.e., the public option eventually transitions into M4A. Not great politically in the primary, but a smart move nonetheless.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'll bet Warren is annoyed AF that Sanders saddled the party with this stupid M4A debate when none of these comprehensive plans have a chance of making through the Senate anyway. She'd obviously much rather be talking about fighting corruption.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Ooops, I lost the House in the midterms. So much for that promise." - Warren

[izixs]

Part of the 3 years might be to balance expectations somewhat so that the party faithful don't abandon the Dems in the mid terms when everything promised was not magically in place after just 2 years. Especially if the senate remains in Republican claws after 2020. Pushing through a light version first that might have some slim chance of passing gets you one of two options, either:
-Republicans kill it and you get to run on Republicans being awful (aka, the current paradigm)
-A couple Republicans vote for it and it passes and you can run on the policy being fantastic but needing expansion

Kind of a win-win strategy. On the other hand if Democrats do take back the senate and keep the house, just need to toss the filibuster or get around it to pass the full thing immediately and its not an issue. And so you can run on getting stuff done in the mid terms and hopefully have a better plan to counter Republican nonsense than Obama had in 2010.

Though I am seeing a bunch of folks going 'oh, this PROVES she's not SERIOUS about M4A!' and the like. Which is honestly super ridiculous given the realities about how politics actually work. But the Sanders folks have tended to be more of the plan of 'if we just exist enough even the most hardened conservative will bow to our whim!' which is doomed to failure.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'll bet Warren is annoyed AF that Sanders saddled the party with this stupid M4A debate when none of these comprehensive plans have a chance of making through the Senate anyway. She'd obviously much rather be talking about fighting corruption.

She didn't have to endorse it. She and every other Johnny-come-lately presidential hopeful out of the senate could have signed on to Bennet's Medicare X instead.

For some stupid reason, they preferred to sign on to Sanders-style health care reform without really committing to Medicare for All. Did Warren, Harris, et al. expect to get through the primaries without ever fielding serious questions on health care?

It's so obvious that they're only pretending to support single payer because of Bernie. I think Gravel was the only other candidate to support single payer before Hillary lost.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'll bet Warren is annoyed AF that Sanders saddled the party with this stupid M4A debate when none of these comprehensive plans have a chance of making through the Senate anyway. She'd obviously much rather be talking about fighting corruption.

She didn't have to endorse it. She and every other Johnny-come-lately presidential hopeful out of the senate could have signed on to Bennet's Medicare X instead.

For some stupid reason, they preferred to sign on to Sanders-style health care reform without really committing to Medicare for All. Did Warren, Harris, et al. expect to get through the primaries without ever fielding serious questions on health care?

It's so obvious that they're only pretending to support single payer because of Bernie. I think Gravel was the only other candidate to support single payer before Hillary lost.

I disagree.  I think they all support single payer. But they're also aware a single payer plan will never make it through Congress and don't want to waste their time in office fighting a doomed battle over health care when they could be focusing on areas where significant progress might actually be made.  If Democrats win the Senate, we'll get increased Obamacare subsidies, some more cost control measures, and maybe some kind of public option. Which is all pretty good!

And anyway, Sanders isn't serious about single payer either.  He's not even willing to go as far as Warren is presenting a plan to pay for it, and that tells you all you need to know. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'll bet Warren is annoyed AF that Sanders saddled the party with this stupid M4A debate when none of these comprehensive plans have a chance of making through the Senate anyway. She'd obviously much rather be talking about fighting corruption.

She didn't have to endorse it. She and every other Johnny-come-lately presidential hopeful out of the senate could have signed on to Bennet's Medicare X instead.

For some stupid reason, they preferred to sign on to Sanders-style health care reform without really committing to Medicare for All. Did Warren, Harris, et al. expect to get through the primaries without ever fielding serious questions on health care?

It's so obvious that they're only pretending to support single payer because of Bernie. I think Gravel was the only other candidate to support single payer before Hillary lost.

I disagree.  I think they all support single payer. But they're also aware a single payer plan will never make it through Congress and don't want to waste their time in office fighting a doomed battle over health care when they could be focusing on areas where significant progress might actually be made.  If Democrats win the Senate, we'll get increased Obamacare subsidies, some more cost control measures, and maybe some kind of public option. Which is all pretty good!

And anyway, Sanders isn't serious about single payer either.  He's not even willing to go as far as Warren is presenting a plan to pay for it, and that tells you all you need to know. 

He wrote the damn bill, so of course he has plans to pay for it.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'll bet Warren is annoyed AF that Sanders saddled the party with this stupid M4A debate when none of these comprehensive plans have a chance of making through the Senate anyway. She'd obviously much rather be talking about fighting corruption.

She didn't have to endorse it. She and every other Johnny-come-lately presidential hopeful out of the senate could have signed on to Bennet's Medicare X instead.

For some stupid reason, they preferred to sign on to Sanders-style health care reform without really committing to Medicare for All. Did Warren, Harris, et al. expect to get through the primaries without ever fielding serious questions on health care?

It's so obvious that they're only pretending to support single payer because of Bernie. I think Gravel was the only other candidate to support single payer before Hillary lost.

I disagree.  I think they all support single payer. But they're also aware a single payer plan will never make it through Congress and don't want to waste their time in office fighting a doomed battle over health care when they could be focusing on areas where significant progress might actually be made.  If Democrats win the Senate, we'll get increased Obamacare subsidies, some more cost control measures, and maybe some kind of public option. Which is all pretty good!

And anyway, Sanders isn't serious about single payer either.  He's not even willing to go as far as Warren is presenting a plan to pay for it, and that tells you all you need to know. 

He wrote the damn bill, so of course he has plans to pay for it.

He has pointedly refused to give even the barest details of how he'd pay for his plan. He's not serious about actually passing his bill.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

Her handling of this healthcare plan and the distracting sideshow with the billionaire feuds has really lowered my confidence in her ability to beat Trump