|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:This is not what happened on student loan forgiveness; he proposed a funding mechanism that was completely unworkable. I feel like many people showed why already. Not in this thread. Please enlighten us, is “completely unworkable” code word for “Republicans don’t like it” or “criminals will avoid it”?
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Not in this thread. Please enlighten us, is “completely unworkable” code word for “Republicans don’t like it” or “criminals will avoid it”? It's just the kind of tax that's impossible to implement! Unless you're the United States from 1912 to 1966 or Japan up until 1999 or modern France or Switzerland or Belgium or... Edit: And of course student loan forgiveness doesn't need a "funding mechanism" in the first place, that's just a bone thrown out to placate succdems who care more about deficits than helping people. The money is already spent so the government could just say tomorrow they don't intend to collect and BOOM - debt gone, no funding needed. But if Bernie wants to stick it to Wall Street while also helping students I'm not gonna complain too loudly. Wicked Them Beats fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:And there is one principle I mentioned above: even if Warren's plans are only about 90-95% similar to Sanders' in many respects, she will advocate for abolishing the Senate filibuster. If this comes to pass and she is President, her plans may actually become reality. See, this is some serious galaxy brain poo poo here. Are we actually supposed the believe that Bernie loving Sanders, the guy who has waged a dogged one-man war to realize his political goals for over four decades by now, would just throw up his hands and admit defeat when faced by US Senate procedural bullshit? Are you talking about some alternate dimension Bernie Sanders or what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I'm genuinely curious how this poo poo has even the most tenuous connection to the post of mine that you quoted. Because you insist on demonizing "liberals" and attacking anyone whose views of Leftist aren't sufficiently pure enough so I'm curious how you define these concepts as they don't seem to track with how these terms are generally used or at least how I see them used. And it's really not conducive to debate if we're not using words to mean the same thing. Personally it seems like you and others use it to describe what I and most of society would define as Conservatives or Moderates and it kind of reminds me of that thing that "agnostics" do where they try to pretend that they aren't really atheists by drawing out some weird "3rd way" by complicating the definition. Then again maybe I'm just missing something here, I'm just a dumb self educated Jar head who couldn't afford to go to college (time or money) so maybe I'm just not getting what your point is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:This is not what happened on student loan forgiveness; he proposed a funding mechanism that was completely unworkable. I feel like many people showed why already. This is wrong for a couple reasons (and as Trabinikov has mentioned, was not discussed here, though I'm pretty sure I know what you're referring to). The first is that there's no actual good reason to think that the transaction tax in question would have any bad effects, other than the extremely questionable judgement of people who profit from it being low. The second is that a "funding mechanism" isn't even strictly needed to do the thing in question - it's not actually a "funding mechanism" so much as a "pulling money out of the economy to off-set the amount added in as a result of forgiving debt to avoid inflation." Fritz Coldcockin posted:I don't believe Sanders is less competent in terms of policy; but I believe that he places less value on campaigning with policy and more on appeals to raw emotion. That isn't to say that appeals to emotion, especially on things like immigration and student loan forgiveness, aren't very useful, but you're using them to decide that Warren is some sort of crypto-fascist because she doesn't do this. There is no rational reason to believe any of this. You just have a gut feeling that Sanders relies on appeals to emotion and isn't as logical about things, despite his history implying he has far superior judgement and experience to Warren. Regarding filibuster, Warren doesn't have any control over that as president, and Sanders has already discussed how he would be willing to do something like use the vice president to render policy he supports permissible under budget reconciliation. More importantly, though, neither Warren nor Sanders' policies will be able to get 51 votes in the Senate. This is why more than just policies matter (and also why foreign policy differences - which is arguably where Sanders is the most better compared with Warren - are so important, since the president has direct power in that area). Sanders is the only candidate who has emphasized and repeatedly participated in the creation and mobilization of a mass movement. This is necessary to make either his or Warren's policies pass in the future, as Congress as it currently exists will never pass anything decent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:See, this is some serious galaxy brain poo poo here. Are we actually supposed the believe that Bernie loving Sanders, the guy who has waged a dogged one-man war to realize his political goals for over four decades by now, would just throw up his hands and admit defeat when faced by US Senate procedural bullshit? Are you talking about some alternate dimension Bernie Sanders or what? This was the most recent thing I could find. He's willing to do it through reconciliation and such, but nothing I could find indicates he'd support getting rid of the filibuster, whereas Warren has tweeted multiple times in support of doing just that. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/11/18306132/bernie-sanders-filibuster-budget-reconciliation-medicare-60-votes
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:This was the most recent thing I could find. He's willing to do it through reconciliation and such, but nothing I could find indicates he'd support getting rid of the filibuster, whereas Warren has tweeted multiple times in support of doing just that. so are you just not gonna tell people why bernie's funding for student debt forgiveness is unworkable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:bernie's says "this would be good" like yeah bernie's policies are all just poo poo like "man how cool would it be if the government paid for college?" or some poo poo and that's literally the full text on the issues page 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Skex posted:Because you insist on demonizing "liberals" and attacking anyone whose views of Leftist aren't sufficiently pure enough so I'm curious how you define these concepts as they don't seem to track with how these terms are generally used or at least how I see them used. And it's really not conducive to debate if we're not using words to mean the same thing. Personally it seems like you and others use it to describe what I and most of society would define as Conservatives or Moderates and it kind of reminds me of that thing that "agnostics" do where they try to pretend that they aren't really atheists by drawing out some weird "3rd way" by complicating the definition. Then again maybe I'm just missing something here, I'm just a dumb self educated Jar head who couldn't afford to go to college (time or money) so maybe I'm just not getting what your point is. Well for starters liberals are garbage, hth. Secondly US political discourse is hosed six ways to Sunday and doesn't match how political ideologies are commonly understood in the rest of the world. Finally political ideologies are actually pretty well-defined concepts in the political science sense, and the different ideologies do have certain basic tenets that you have to subscribe to in order to count as an adherent of said ideology. For example and to summarize, just because you consider yourself a liberal doesn't mean that you are one. Hope this clears things up. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:This is not what happened on student loan forgiveness; he proposed a funding mechanism that was completely unworkable. I feel like many people showed why already. This isn't true at all, and if you are in any way serious about your concern of competence (as opposed to liking the signals that Warren gives out that pleases a certain type of identity) you should rethink your support. Several countries have or have had taxes on asset transfers. This includes the US for most of the 20th century. Meanwhile, Warren's plan on a current wealth tax has no workable version anywhere. There's simply no mechanism present in her proposal on how to tax foreign assets, assets in trust, etc. How do you tax assets in the Cayman Islands if you can't even know who it belongs to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
you guys Marianne Williamson totally surged after that last debate  https://twitter.com/mmcauliff/status/1159222401856618497
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
I don't see why everyone is talking about some second tier candidates for the past few pages when Biden is the forerunner and he just gave an excellent speech today. https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1159209632600154113
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:31
|
|
Condiv posted:so are you just not gonna tell people why bernie's funding for student debt forgiveness is unworkable? There were multiple defects (which, yes, we discussed), but the biggest was that the campaign argued that it would be paid for by a transaction tax that was five times the rate previously proposed and supported by evidence on its impacts, well past a rate that would cripple financial systems and other systems that depend upon them, such as pretty much all pension plans. Transaction taxes are not generally a stable source of revenue, and directly linking a continuously costed policy to one makes little sense. With regard to the matter at hand, it's not subtle that you're trying to shift topics away from the content of the policies that were, again, presented. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
Bernie's plans are all vague, defected, generally stupid wishlist economics stuff. Everybody gets a pony pablum. Its absolutely no surprise his stans don't want to engage on an intellectual level
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:I don't see why everyone is talking about some second tier candidates for the past few pages when Biden is the forerunner and he just gave an excellent speech today. I swear he sounds more and more like Trump as time goes on
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
I can't take Joe Biden seriously,. That speech, word for word, could easily be about Joe Biden. Would his political strategy of hate, racism, and division be ok if he were apologetic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:A good, moral candidate should be kept in a locked vault at an unspecified location, and should never be revealed until after the election. i mean as far as i can tell this is what biden's handlers are attempting
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:This isn't true at all, and if you are in any way serious about your concern of competence (as opposed to liking the signals that Warren gives out that pleases a certain type of identity) you should rethink your support. this is why as a true radical i support warren -- unlike bernie, she understands the war against global capital must be fought by attacking concentrations of capital no matter where in the world, which necessarily includes invasions of rogue nations like the cayman islands to force them to hand over their beneficiary information
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:you guys Marianne Williamson totally surged after that last debate This is why I think Warren is going to be the nominee in a contested convention.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:you guys Marianne Williamson totally surged after that last debate Warren's numbers are remarkable here. Very few Dems would be disappointed with her.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There were multiple defects (which, yes, we discussed), but the biggest was that the campaign argued that it would be paid for by a transaction tax that was five times the rate previously proposed and supported by evidence on its impacts, well past a rate that would cripple financial systems and other systems that depend upon them, such as pretty much all pension plans. Transaction taxes are not generally a stable source of revenue, and directly linking a continuously costed policy to one makes little sense. I’m not interested in your opinions discendo vox. I asked fritz to clarify his assertion Don’t expect to be taken seriously after you posted doctored images to slander a candidate Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Aug 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:I don't see why everyone is talking about some second tier candidates for the past few pages when Biden is the forerunner and he just gave an excellent speech today. What about this is excellent? It was just someone else's words that he practiced 100 times in the mirror with pauses for applause and everything. The words may be correct, but the man saying them is not up to the task.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Warren's numbers are remarkable here. Very few Dems would be disappointed with her. Like a 40-degree day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:I don't understand...so because Warren hasn't introduced it as legislation in a Senate where it won't even get a vote, this makes it bad? Well after what happened with PPACA, yeah if you want my vote for President you should have a bill already written or you're not serious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Well for starters liberals are garbage, hth. Secondly US political discourse is hosed six ways to Sunday and doesn't match how political ideologies are commonly understood in the rest of the world. Finally political ideologies are actually pretty well-defined concepts in the political science sense, and the different ideologies do have certain basic tenets that you have to subscribe to in order to count as an adherent of said ideology. For example and to summarize, just because you consider yourself a liberal doesn't mean that you are one. Hope this clears things up. So basically you don't have an answer beyond insults. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:well past a rate that would cripple financial systems sounds like a win-win Discendo Vox posted:such as pretty much all pension plans  noIf your pension plan is doing high frequency trading you should probably get a new plan manager
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:The first sentence literally contradicts the second. You see that, right? If Sanders doesn't have a plan yet, how can you say the Warren plan "isn't as good"? I feel like you and others are really just struggling to avoid acknowledging that someone besides Bernie had a good policy idea. No, it's more that you and other centrist Warren supporters mysteriously like similar plans better when they come from a non-jewish candidate. Weird. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:What about this is excellent? It's excellent in the way boomers can feel like he will be electable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
You will regret your (baseless) accusations of anti-semitism, crazy cloud.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:59
|
|
VitalSigns posted:sounds like a win-win The 0.1% proposal from Schatz was considered an effective method for ending HFT. The Sanders proposal was five times that. It would terminate trading, period.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The 0.1% proposal from Schatz was considered an effective method for ending HFT. The Sanders proposal was five times that. It would terminate trading, period. Good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The 0.1% proposal from Schatz was considered an effective method for ending HFT. The Sanders proposal was five times that. It would terminate trading, period. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
That includes pension plans, which I already said. Y'all this is getting into Khmer Rouge territory. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The 0.1% proposal from Schatz was considered an effective method for ending HFT. The Sanders proposal was five times that. It would terminate trading, period. Hell if I knew all it took to destroy Wall Street forever was a half-percentage transaction tax I would have been advocating for it for decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The 0.1% proposal from Schatz was considered an effective method for ending HFT. The Sanders proposal was five times that. It would terminate trading, period. People are going to stop buying securities because of a 1% tax? Nah. Check out the management fees on actively managed funds sometime, people still buy those.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That includes pension plans, which I already said. Y'all this is getting into Khmer Rouge territory. lmbo A 0.5% fee is the same as murdering everyone wearing glasses. Is your daddy a banker, you're hysterical
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There were multiple defects (which, yes, we discussed), but the biggest was that the campaign argued that it would be paid for by a transaction tax that was five times the rate previously proposed and supported by evidence on its impacts, well past a rate that would cripple financial systems and other systems that depend upon them, such as pretty much all pension plans. Transaction taxes are not generally a stable source of revenue, and directly linking a continuously costed policy to one makes little sense. You are pulling poo poo out of your rear end while trying to sound informed on an issue you have no clue about. You are aggressively ignorant of the topic even as you condescend to others . The idea that a 0.5% tax on transfers (as opposed to the 0.1% scored by the CBO) would cripple financial systems would be a very big surprise for economists, people who regularly trade in London, and anyone else. Here's an actual estimate of the impacts of Bernie's proposal https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/698-the-revenue-potential-of-a-financial-transaction-tax-for-u-s-financial-markets Choice quote: quote:Considering the varied data we have gathered for the UK, Japan and China, what This is perhaps the quintessential example that some people care more about sounding wonky than being wonky. Looking like an expert is more important than reading the experts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
I mean there is nothing wrong with that tax and it would not have 1% of the effect Discendo Vox claims that it would, but more than that, it feels like it was something thrown out there so the "how will you pay for it"   crowd would have an additional level of abstraction to get past before they could complain about the policy, which they were going to do no matter what. So, mission accomplished.Having said that, and kind of unrelated, it's probably important to realize that any real measures to do something about income inequality are going to crater the stock market. As in, 80% drop territory, because income inequality and the fact the rich have literally more money than they can figure out what to do with, is what is propping it up right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
Looking forward to the debate twenty years from now, when all the experts agree that the long-standing 0.5% FTT is perfectly reasonable and sane, but President Ocasio-Cortez's proposal to raise it to 1.0% is insane and radical and will kill us all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
I did read that article, the first time it was cited when we discussed this before. It specifically avoids estimating effects on trading, in the elasticity section below your quotation. Its estimated revenue gain under any set of assumptions made (which includes a fifty percent reduction in trading, which other analyses indicate is an underestimate) still doesn't match his stated revenues. It would be infinitely preferable if the Sanders campaign didn't try to peg this as a revenue source and just used the better supported 0.1% value that had been previously proposed to stop HFT. I really don't need him to answer the "how would you pay for it" question- I agree that it's bogus. But it makes no sense to link the tax and the collegiate debt program. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Aug 8, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:34
|
|