I'm a Liz Warren fan. Root problem: billionaires influencing politics. Warren will address this.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

Warren’s plans to deal with wealth concentration are the only thing I’ve seen that can really fix our country. She’s got a plan to reduce wealth inequality which will reduce the impact of money in politics and media. And she’s got the history and experience to make those plans happen.

[Ohiogal]

1. I really like her, too

And I think she would fight wealth inequality first and foremost.

[guillaumeb]

2. Is Warren proposing a wealth tax? eom

[MrsCoffee]

7. Yes.

https://elizabethwarren.com/issues/#rebuild-the-middle-class

That includes an Ultra-Millionaire Tax on America’s 75,000 richest families to produce trillions that can be used to build an economy that works for everyone, including universal childcare, student loan debt relief, and down payments on a Green New Deal and Medicare for All. And we can make a historic investment in housing that would bring down rents by 10% across America and create 1.5 million new jobs.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-wealth-tax-constitutional.html

One of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s first proposals upon joining the 2020 presidential field was a wealth tax. Warren would impose an annual tax of 2 percent on family assets in excess of $50 million, which would increase to 3 percent for assets above $1 billion. Overall, this tax would hit 75,000 families in the country, who make up 0.01 percent of the population but hold 10 percent of the nation’s wealth. Warren’s tax, if enacted, would be a major step in reversing the dramatic increase in the concentration of wealth that has occurred since the Reagan years.

[guillaumeb]

21. An excellent idea.

Implementation might be problematic.

[wasupaloopa]

3. Tax policy has been used since the beginning of this country to shift wealth one way or the other.

Before Reagan and starting with Roosevelt's new deal, tax policy favored the working class. There is no mystery to how to solve wealth inequity.

[onit2day]

16. Well said Wasu. Repeal the Reagan tax cuts is a great starting point to fix wealth inequality

[mobeau69]

27. That's what taxes are; a redistribution of income!

[at140]

4. Sen Warren is bold and courageous and has all the right ideas

to stop the 0.1% from becoming overlords and kings.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. I agree, Elizabeth is all over this, which is why she is my #2 choice...

Bernie too has made this issue a centerpiece of his progressive agenda, which is why I love them both, as you can prolly tell.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[at140]

54. Bernie is the father of solid progressive ideas!

If Bernie had not run in 2016, the ideas and agenda he pushed would not even be on table today.

I just think president's job is physically demanding IF HE/SHE WANTS THINGS DONE.
I would enthusiastically support Warren/Sanders ticket.
Elizabeth the energetic dynamo and Bernie the senior statesman guiding her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. I could live with that too!! Maybe they take turns being president?!

I have to say though, having Elizabeth, an incredibly qualified progressive candidate, as the first woman to be elected president would be historic obviously, but also make me so damn proud of this country again. If anyone is worthy of that high honor, it's Elizabeth.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ProfessorPlum]

5. me too

I read her book, and she is sincere about it. Her in depth knowledge about how financial entities screw over everyone is invaluable.

[pecosbob]

6. I like Warren as well

We know where she stands on economic issues and money in politics (kudos to her by the way), but I need to hear what else she is going to bring to the table. Does she support free trade agreements that screw over workers and the environment? What is her position on the rising threat of Russian expansionism? Will she take the Chinese to task for their espionage and trade abuses? Will she address the out of control military budget and the privatization of essential services? These are all things I want to hear...hopefully all the candidates will begin to stake out positions soon.

[PatrickforO]

10. This is a good point. As an economist, I really, really like Warren.

However, it will be edifying to find out how she stands on a broader scope of issues. Right now, I've got her as a favorite just because I think that the primacy of the shareholder doctrine is the root cause of human-made climate change, most of the wealth inequality, union busting, pension grabbing, cutting corners on worker and consumer safety, etc. I've mentioned her Accountable Capitalism Act draft legislation until I sound like a broken record, I know, but it really IS the root cause of many of our problems.

[pecosbob]

11. As a non-economist with only enough education to get myself into trouble in discussions

I would readily agree that the short-sighted chase of profits has put us in a race to the bottom. We truly need a game-changing leader.

[HopeAgain]

19. Climate Change and wealth disparities

Are the most pressing issues by far. But it seems like Warren and Sanders both need to bring more to the table on a myriad of other issues before I can make a choice.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

50. I agree: corporate power and rightwing institutions and media go hand in hand

As someone from a red state who watched the state change over three decades, I can say that the NRAs electoral power was created gradually with propaganda over decades due to two things:
- rightwing media, built and owned by the wealthy, and
- gun company funding, which is controlled by wealthy gun CEOs


Krushschev was right when he said that money and greed was our weak point. It took a few decades, but oligarchy has sunk our country low, perhaps beyond repair.

[PatrickforO]

8. The Accountable Capitalism Act she introduced in August '18

is brilliant. Warren really gets it.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

9. Yes. If Warren isn't pres I hope the pres works CLOSELY with her in the senate

[lark]

12. I'm a big fan of hers too.

I've set Biden ss my top choice because I think he's the most electable, but if he decides not to run, right now I think Warren is my 2nd choice, but Kamala, Sherrod and Amy are also strong contenders in my book. I m so looking forward to the primaries and the debates. This summer is shaping up nicely with debates starting in June then meeting some good friends from NZ for an Alaska cruise the first of July. I'm hoping we will be able to fit in a trip to CA sometime between April - mid-June. So there will be plenty of traveling plus the debates = good summer and I can't wait.

[onit2day]

14. See, I believe Biden is the least electable but who repubs would most like to run against

due to his long history he carries a lot of baggage.

[lark]

17. I think it's totally the opposite.

He's the one they don't want to run against because he's so popular and the polar opposite of their cretin. He's a caring person, above all and more so than any of the others. No one is perfect, Harris was a prosecutor and not a progressive one, I'm sure there are horror stories the media will find. Warren is the foe of the banking crowd and we already know how they are attacking her. Amy, well we've seen the start of their attacks on her. Joe was wrong on Thomas and bankruptcy but he's been right about trying to keep us out of wars more so than any of the other Democrats and he's just plain likable.

Bernie is the one Russia and Repugs like to push because he's the one they want to destroy us.

[smirkymonkey]

33. I agree. I am still undecided but I am favoring a Biden/Harris ticket.

I think he is the one that scares him the most because of his likability and his ability to put Trump in his place. I worry about the ability of the others to stand up to Trump without having it backfire on them.

[VarryOn]

31. I don't see Biden as "least electable" at all...

Unless there's something I've forgotten, I consider his baggage history. Hopefully, there arent any pics and stories since #MeToo. I dont think his past verbal gaffes will be too detrimental...of course, new ones are very possible. But, he comes across as a very nice guy and not mean at all.

He's got the best resume among a lot of really great one.

He's had some serious tragedy in his life. When he starts rolling out those stories again, those will endear many voters.

My main to issues with him is his age and his propensity to overvalue bipartisanship.

I'd put him in the top 3 or 4 most electable in the primary.

[onit2day]

13. Sanders made this a major issue also and I love Warren. Hope all our candidates

make this a major issue. So many ways to approach dealing with inequality. I'd love to see a Sanders/Warren ticket or even vice versa. Goodness we have so many great candidates. The reality of the 1st "New Deal" when we got unemployment ins, SS, and jobs programs where the gov was the employer of last resort and repubs screamed about inflation and how prices would go up due to all this gov spending BUT the opposite happened, prices went down and no inflation. We flourished and for every dollar spent we got $7-$16 dollars back in tax revenue from increased wages and an employed populace. People who claim we cannot afford or pay for the "New 'Green' Deal" are those who want to privatize or profit from these same services. We can easily afford and pay for the GND and those who say we can't, ignore history.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. A Sanders/Warren ticket?? What a great idea!!

Great minds think alike!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[jalan48]

15. I like her too, especially because she addresses issues like this.

[ecstatic]

18. Where does she stand on other issues?

Billionaires and wealth concentration isn't among my top 10 concerns.

[lapucelle]

28. On the Issues is a reliable, objective source for an overview of a candidate's policy

positions and record on most (if not all) of the issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/elizabeth_warren.htm

[ecstatic]

32. Thanks, I'll check it out. nt

[lapucelle]

29. Here's Cory Booker's page.

I'm truly undecided, but he looks good as well.



http://www.ontheissues.org/Cory_Booker.htm

[Horizens]

30. Non-Plussed

estatic wrote: "Billionaires and wealth concentration isn't among my top 10 concerns."

I'm totally non-plussed by that opinion. IMHO there are two existential threats to our way of life in the U.S., Russia and Climate Change.

1.) Any serious attempt to minimize the affects of climate change will necessitate an extraordinary investment in clean energy. Without drastic income/wealth reform we won't be able to do what needs to be done.

We also need to massively invest in our crumbling infrastructure which, in addition to roads, includes our electrical, sewage and water systems. Those systems have been constructed in a hodge - lodge manner for over 100 years and must be updated with 21st century technology.

I have to add that without drastic income/wealth reform we will become a two class society which, IMHO, is also an existential threat to our way of life.

[ooky]

20. I like her, and wealth inequality is of high importance to me.

I'm pretty confident she would repeal the tax scam, also of high importance to me. My queston is where does she stand on providing affordable health care to those who need immediate relief - those who are strugglng financially from chronic diseases. That's my top issue, an issue that proposals for Medicare for age 50+ don't address a solution to.

[mvd]

23. Hi

She likes Bernie's single payer plan. She may be a little flexible on it but that might be needed. As long as we start big, we have more room to negotiate.

[turbinetree]

22. I will back Senator Warren 100%

[not fooled]

24. Likewise

She has the legislative experience and academic background to understand what needs to be done and how to do it to turn around this country. She could be the new FDR.

[McKim]

25. Me too! She is the real deal!

Me too, I am ready to volunteer for her, have her bumper sticker on my car already! She is the real deal!

[Kurt V.]

26. Kick

[Mars and Minerva]

34. I could be convinced to support Elizabeth Warren

Her platform is very good and I like that she has been clear for many years, about how she would improve the lives of average Americans.
I am waiting for her to show the savvy and spark I saw when she was stumping for Hillary. Maybe we need to be further along in the process with bigger crowds for her to show her mettle.
Whoever goes up against Trump in 2020 will need plenty of mettle.

[Shoonra]

35. Good idea, not good prospects

It makes lovely sense that those who have disproportionately benefited from the American system should return disproportionate support.

On the other hand, the fat cats that such a new tax rate would affect will spend their billions to see to it that the proposal, and any candidate supporting it, will never succeed.

[whathehell]

44. I suspect she's already considered the resistance to her plan..

and has ideas in place to combat it.

[demigoddess]

36. I think the best fix is a 90% tax on the super wealthy. No one needs billions of $

And the country doesn't need the wealth inequality.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

38. Income tax, wealth tax, or estate tax?

[demigoddess]

49. all of the above.

[JayhawkSD]

37. Three problems on Warren as the solution to this issue.

1. We seem to be addressing wealth as a problem, but not wealth as it relates to influence on governance. Eliminate the influence of money in politics, we say, by making the wealthy less wealthy. That sounds logical, but it actually is not. Warren proposes to reduce the wealth of the elite by 2% per year, wealth which is growing at something like 7% per year or more. That does not compute.

2. Reducing wealth of the elite by 2% per year is not materially going to reduce the amount of money which the elite give to politicians in order to influence legislation.

3. We have a big problem with the elite offering money to legislators in order to influence legislation, but we do not seem to have a problem with legislators accepting money and altering their votes on legislation in return. We keep reelecting those legislators at an 85% rate, and Elizabeth Warren offers no solution to prevent legislators from accepting money in return for legislation favorable to those offering the money.

In short, while Elizabeth Warren might be a good choice in many respects, nothing that she is offering seems to me be likely to in any way alter the effect of money in governance.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

39. Good point. But here's why she's good on these issues.

It’s a good point that the 2% wealth tax won’t have any major short term effect. But it WILL have a long term effect, and it’s an important plank of her platform that is aimed to reduce corruption - the influence of money in politics.

I think this New Republic article does a good job explaining the parts of that platform.

And it highlights that she DOES have policy plans to address money in politics directly.

In a New York magazine profile in July, Warren said that opposing corruption “is becoming a much more defining part of my work.” The next month, she introduced the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, a sprawling bill that would impose new lobbying requirements, rewrite campaign finance rules, and tackle a wide range of other good-government reforms. In her speech announcing the bill, Warren argued that corruption was not just a by-product of Trump’s rise, but enabled by it as well.

So I think you’re right that money in politics needs to be addressed directly. And I like Warren because she not only addresses the details but also addresses long term, big picture problems with the wealth tax.

[JayhawkSD]

41. Then you should have raised that point in your original post.

Instead of saying,

"Warren’s plans to deal with wealth concentration are the only thing I’ve seen that can really fix our country. She’s got a plan to reduce wealth inequality which will reduce the impact of money in politics and media."

Which is what I was refuting.

How can we have a reasonable discussion when you say one thing, I respond, and then you rebut me with a totally different argument?

If you think she is a good candidate for reducing the influence of money in politics because she is raising bills like the "Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act," then why aren't you saying that instead of using inane arguments such as that she is good for that cause because she will impoverish the wealthy by taxing them at a 2% rate while their wealth grows at a 7% rate?

That argument ignores the reality that if you reduce something at a 2% rate which is growing at a 7% rate, you are not going to reduce it at all. The wealth tax does not address wealth inequality at all because it does not make the wealthy any less wealthy, it merely means that their wealth grows a little less rapidly, at 5% per year rather than at 7% per year.

So Warren's wealth tax doesn't make the less any less rich, it doesn't make the poor any richer, and it doesn't significantly affect revenue, because it only raises enough to cover 20% of the current deficit. I'm not opposed to the wealth tax. If it is found to be constitutional, buy all means pass it. I'm just not sufficiently deluded to think that it's going to significantly change the nation or the economy. It's a raindrop falling in a large pond and won't even make a ripple.

And, the problem with the "Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act" is that it means that the people who are taking the money will have to vote to make it illegal for they themselves to continue taking the money. That seems to me to be very unlikely to happen.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

42. She proposed two things. _(ツ)_/

One addresses long term effects of billionaire influence.
One addresses short term effects. Both are important.

The fact remains that she is the candidate who is actually trying to address this, and also has concrete plans to address this. That’s why I’m for her. I won’t be negative about other candidates; it’s not helpful. If you’d like to make a positive case for how other candidates will do better, please do and I’m all ears.

[MrsCoffee]

40. She has addressed your concerns.

She has railed against Citizens United. She has introduced legislation to stop corporate corruption and wants a lifetime ban on legislators lobbying.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17760916/elizabeth-warren-anti-corruption-act-bill-lobbying-ban-president-trump

[BlueWI]

43. Agreed.

Warren is a fierce and effective advocate for reigning in the financial practices that cost consumers and heighten the risk of systems failure. I also like Brown and Kloubuchar, but Warren would be my first choice.

[backscatter712]

45. Me too. She's sharp, she knows her stuff, and she knows how to play the political game.

I'm in her corner this season.

And what's the worst the right-wing howler monkeys have to say about her? "Pocahontas"? That says everything about them, and very little about her.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

46. Well put

[jeffreydj]

47. Go, Liz!

I, too, am a Liz Warren Fan, though I will admit to being seriously tempted to pull the preference tab here for Jay Inslee, the candidate invisible to anyone relying on CNN or MSNBC for discussion of the Dem presidential field.

Sen. Warren is out there campaigning in prose, which one MSBNCer told her was not the way to campaign, poetry being the preferred medium. Maybe so, but Warren is offering serious, solid policy proposals for what this country most needs to be improving. She just told Chris Hayes that corruption in D.C. will be her very first policy objective as Prez, and in that she is straight on. Not one other desirable policy can be enacted in Congress until the lobbyists are forced off of Capitol Hill.

Now the center of Inslee's platform is climate change, the most critical topic of all. Running to save the planet tends to beat every other topic. I would adore a Warren/Inslee ticket, though I would just as happy to pull the lever for Inslee/Warren.

Damn! have we got a fine fine field of Dem presidential candidates! Every one of them ought to be able to send Der Orangfuhrer into single-termitude.

[jeffreydj]

48. Had I the ear of Liz Warren

I would whisper to her that while the wealth tax sounds excellent, perhaps she should consider (instead?) calling for, and writing legislation to, tax capital gains and dividends as regular income. Would the benefit to Treasury accounts be as huge? Not sure, but very likely, and possibly more so.

To learn who would howl on Capitol Hill would be quite instructive. In a sec, we would know which legislators are, and are not working for us.

[emulatorloo]

53. Yes. She is the real deal