Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I LOVE Elizabeth Warren: All aboard - WOO WOO!!! (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Tom Skerritt
- Start date
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I feel like Obama was also criticized for his professorial tone, not sure if that's the same thing. There is definitely a strain of voter that recoils from the very qualities I find attractive in a candidate (thoughtfulness, deep understanding of issues, ability to convey complex ideas more simply to laypeople).
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yeah I thought about that exact thing- Obama and the "professor" thing. But I think that's very different. I think "professorial tone" implies dorky know-it-all, whereas "schoolmarm" implies talking to people like they're children in need of discipline.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Warren is too far to the left and too populist for me. If 2020 ends up as Warren vs. Trump, I'm going to go ahead and chalk that up as another failure for democracy.
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
I think she just talks that way to get the lefty/populist vote. I don't believe she acts on most of it and she's already walking a lot of things back. For example Medicare for All is slowly becoming "access" to healthcare
Last edited by a moderator:
As someone who voted 3rd party in 2016, please resist the urge. She's too far left for my tastes, but I'd still vote for her in a second. We can't have a repeat. Plus, she's one of the few people I trust to actually push for campaign finance reform and lobbying reform. That's how we'll start to root out corruption. We can't have nice things until that is done. And while I don't like college debt forgiveness, it would certainly give the economy more of a shot in the arm than tax cuts for the rich.
The Commish
Footballguy
This might be "pie in the sky" of me, but I tend to believe her and Pete are the more pragmatic of the group while still trying to strive for the goals they are claiming. I can easily see either of them swinging back to the middle after winning the nomination. I believe she's 100% correct about the primary source(s) of our problems in many areas and that's important. Way too often politicians spend all their time trying to fix the symptoms. I don't like some of the solutions like M4A....I think the public option is the next logical step. And I think some of her solutions are more "visionary" than reality TODAY, but if you get someone like her in there pushing the ideas the way she does, that picks up the pace of the ball rolling and that's a good thing. You'll need 3-4 Presidents after her with a very similar vision to make this climate stuff work...same with infrastructure, but the GOP will always be their biggest hurdle. That's a feature not a bug for the GOP though.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
If it's any consolation to both you and @IvanKaramazov, she would enter office with, at best, a tiny Senate majority that relies upon the cooperation of people like Jon Manchin, Jon Tester and Angus King. Obviously she could shape regulatory policy without them, but anything more than that would require her to work from the center. She's not going to be raising the higehst marginal tax rate to 70%, nationalizing energy production, erasing all student loan debt and mandating zero emission vehicles or something. And the only Justices she'd likely have a chance to replace any time in the next four years would be Breyer and RBG.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Schoolteacher? No. But people make fun of politician's relentlessly all the time. See Ted Cruz. See Chris Christie.
If she holds up her end of this bargain (https://elizabethwarren.com/issues#end-washington-corruption), I don't really care what else she does because if she can deliver on that, she'll have done more good than harm by a large margin.
As for the GOP, I think trump might've killed them. There is a whole generation of people that will not soon forget how quickly everyone fell in line with this clown. Graham is the posterboy for this, but we all know the entire party did it.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Warren has even less of a chance of a Democratic Senate than any of the other candidates because the Republicans would (temporarily) get her Massachusetts seat if she were to become President.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This is a fair point. I do worry however that she could do (what I perceive as) a lot of damage by prioritizing certain types of anti-trust enforcement, which I assume would be within her purview.
I would feel better if I knew she was committed to spending political capital on climate change as opposed to, say, the "economic patriotism" thing.
Gopher State
Footballguy
Godsbrother
Footballguy
So do I yet if that unfortunate event occurs I am still going to vote for her. Getting Trump out of office is the most important thing for me.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
"Hey, let's drown the street in signs so nobody at home notices there's only a handful of people there"
https://twitter.com/fox_c4EW/status/1170335007946285056?s=19
https://twitter.com/fox_c4EW/status/1170335007946285056?s=19
KingPrawn
Footballguy
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
This may not be representative of every city....it may be, we don't have these kinds of pictures from each of her stops. But in these pictures from this city, it certainly appears as if there are more signs than people.She isn't drawing big crowds?
The Commish
Footballguy
Donnie took her sharpies...what is she going to draw with?She isn't drawing big crowds?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Politico article on Warren's relationship with Obama and his administration
Every time I read these sorts of articles I like Warren more. I don't know that she would get any more done than someone like Biden if she were President, especially if Republicans keep the Senate. But she would talk about things very differently, and I think that's important.
Every time I read these sorts of articles I like Warren more. I don't know that she would get any more done than someone like Biden if she were President, especially if Republicans keep the Senate. But she would talk about things very differently, and I think that's important.
tri-man 47
Footballguy
Just saw Warren's proposal for Social Security, and my first response is that I really like it. I've been saying for many years that the easy 'fix' is to add more SS tax at the higher income levels - if you're fortunate enough to make that kind of income for a number of years, you're probably also feeding money into a retirement account (with employer match) ...so you can afford to help those not as fortunate. The current pain is minor (slightly more tax); the long term pain is minor (you'll live just fine in retirement). I'm comfortable with the Robin Hood effect. I guess I'm becoming more of a Democrat in my old age. 
timschochet
Footballguy
Keep in mind that with almost every one of Warren’s proposals, she will need progressives in charge of the House and Senate along with her in the White House- very unlikely. Changes to Social Security, from either side, are pretty much a political impossibility.Just saw Warren's proposal for Social Security, and my first response is that I really like it. I've been saying for many years that the easy 'fix' is to add more SS tax at the higher income levels - if you're fortunate enough to make that kind of income for a number of years, you're probably also feeding money into a retirement account (with employer match) ...so you can afford to help those not as fortunate. The current pain is minor (slightly more tax); the long term pain is minor (you'll live just fine in retirement). I'm comfortable with the Robin Hood effect. I guess I'm becoming more of a Democrat in my old age.
The Commish
Footballguy
Unfortunately, this is going to be the case for any Democrat simply because they are a Democrat. That's where we're at right now. For example, the GOP isn't going to bring anything to the floor in the Senate healthcare related unless its a repeal of Obamacare.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Raise taxes on people making more money isnt exactly a groundbreaking idea.Just saw Warren's proposal for Social Security, and my first response is that I really like it. I've been saying for many years that the easy 'fix' is to add more SS tax at the higher income levels - if you're fortunate enough to make that kind of income for a number of years, you're probably also feeding money into a retirement account (with employer match) ...so you can afford to help those not as fortunate. The current pain is minor (slightly more tax); the long term pain is minor (you'll live just fine in retirement). I'm comfortable with the Robin Hood effect. I guess I'm becoming more of a Democrat in my old age.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
With the Trump is finding loopholes in bypassing congress and the senate, by the time the next president is sworn in the president will be able to do whatever they want
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
They never fix the tax code so the middle class ends up paying all the extra taxes not the intended target.
the moops
Footballguy
This is going to be a hilarious thing to watch. We must fix all the loopholes that we just benefited immensely from!
Whole lot of precedent being set. Karma is going to be a ##### and I hope it hits full force.
Mile High
Footballguy
Maybe not this time, but soon. I watched Colorado grow from Californians moving to Colorado and flip to blue. It's only a matter of time before some of those red states growing with California transplants flip to blue.
Edited to add: As someone said earlier if some of those northwestern tech companies would move some of there operations to say like Georga and Florida they could flip those states to blue.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Yes, that will be hilarious.the moops said:
Equally hilarious will be "We will exploit all the loopholes we spent the last four years crying about!" In case you think that's a strawman, here's an example that I didn't have look too hard to find, since it was literally the very next post after yours:
One of the reasons why I support Biden is because I think he represents the best chance to reestablish norms that should never have been broken in the first place. One of the reasons why I oppose Warren is because she seems pretty squarely in the Trump camp and will probably destroy those norms permanently.Ranethe said:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Which norms in particular? If Dems control the Senate Warren will try to get rid of the filibuster, but other than that I think she'll respect norms.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Two prominent examples would be governing by executive order, and abusing anti-trust law.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Meh, the executive order norm was broken a long time ago, that’s never going back to the old days unless we get a Congress capable of passing stuff.
And the antitrust thing just seems like a policy difference. In what way is that a “norm”?
I’m not sure how to respond to this. Do you really expect that Democrats would spurn the use of suddenly available avenues based on precedent? Do you think the pursuit of conservative goals is more valid than the Dems pursuit of theirs? I’d love it if there was dignity in politics, if there was legitimately common cause amongst our politicians. The reality is it’s all about accruing power. The right wing worldview has achieved stunning gains under Trump, undoing decades of progress. Republicans have not blinked any eye at the means used. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Governing has been transformed (I agree for the worst).
Republicans are responsible. I also detest their worldview. Given the new reality, I would expect-and hope-that Democrats would do nothing else but play by the same book to advance our goals. And they certainly would do so with significantly more dignity, kindness, ethics, and class than the entity that Republicans have installed and support to advance their goals.
I have no doubt about the sincerity of your wish to reestablish norms but it will be awfully convenient for conservatives (global, not personal) to decry the inevitable turnabout. It would be just another political weapon to hamper an agenda. I don’t trust that conservatives are honest partners. Trumpism is going to have far reaching consequences for conservatives (I hope).
Redwes25
Footballguy
Yeah, she is out there. I would vote for her to remove the abomination that is Trump but would quickly start hoping Republicans could nominate someone with half a brain. This country is getting way to radical on right and left.
Yeah, that's a big problem. This woman could actually get my vote if they could actually tax the top 1% and eliminate that payroll tax cap. That more than anything pisses me off that if you make over 130k or whatever it is, you basically pay less taxes that people making less than you percentage wise. The cap imo is there so congress doesn't have to pay as much as the rest of us.
Does it make sense that if you tax the top 1% more and funnel that $ to SS, that those people will then spend that $ on products and the rich will actually get richer because their stock investments will increase? I mean the poor SS recipients will not hoard that extra $200 a month, they will spend it. Seems like a way to keep the engine running.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Just to clarify, their benefits are also capped. What the proposal is, would be a tax without any additional benefit. You could be right on the spending part. But one thing that is for certain is the calculation on the revenue side is going to be heavy. If you can control your salary in any way you will massage that number to not go over that cap number. Many people who make over $130K per year on salary are business owners who often set their own salary vs what is left in the company and not subject to the tax. Very few of this top 1-2% she mentions makes their income through taxable SS wages.
Redwes25
Footballguy
You make more than 130k you are going to end up paying more in taxes then someone making less since the rest of the tax code is progressive.
The logic behind SS (and how it was sold originally) is you get out what you put in. As I understand her plan she would not improve the benefits for anyone just remove the tax cap, which just makes it like any other tax and not a system where your benefits are tied to amount of taxes you paid into the system.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redwes25
Footballguy
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Right, if you make your income through a small business, often you personally pay taxes personally for that businesses' income. It ends up being shown as income on your personal income tax. The only part of that subject to the SS tax is whatever you have deemed your salary. It's up to the IRS to determine what is "reasonable", but there are no set in stone guidelines. There has been an incentive to classify more of that income as salary for QBI offsets in the Trump tax changes, but I think this would certainly do away with that incentive. To use today's wages for those people as a measuring stick to calculate revenues wouldn't be realistic if someone can just arbitrarily say, yeah I cut my salary down to $125K this year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redwes25
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
At the least it isn't blatantly unconstitutional, unlike her wealth tax. I'd like to see a bit more attention paid to solvency than promising more free cash. Raise the cap, maybe mildly change the bend points to skew more toward the low end, tag the start date to average age of death. SS was always promised to be a piggy bank - it should stay that way. The idea that we'll hammer the rich with no payback at all (the last bend point is accretive to the system, not the individual so raising the cap still benefits the system) breaks the fundamental promise that SS was built on.Just saw Warren's proposal for Social Security, and my first response is that I really like it. I've been saying for many years that the easy 'fix' is to add more SS tax at the higher income levels - if you're fortunate enough to make that kind of income for a number of years, you're probably also feeding money into a retirement account (with employer match) ...so you can afford to help those not as fortunate. The current pain is minor (slightly more tax); the long term pain is minor (you'll live just fine in retirement). I'm comfortable with the Robin Hood effect. I guess I'm becoming more of a Democrat in my old age.
She's batting .333 or so here, which isn't bad for a politician.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Yes I understand those with high incomes of the past 35 years are not the same as those with high incomes of the next whatever number of years. However that being said those high income folks raided the piggy bank along time ago to pay for their income tax cuts so I don't have a lot of sympathy for high income folks now being asked to pay some back for those gains. They have had decades of payback where the regressive payroll taxes funded their tax cuts.
Similar threads
