Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheOldBarn

I like Warren - but they say she's too left of Center

Recommended Posts

There has been a lot of attention paid to the idea that we first off need to beat Trump, no two ways about it, I agree. Historically, going back to 2016 that is, Bernie Sanders changed a whole lot of minds in the Democratic Party when he gained a large following - especially and ironically in young people. He also garnered support from middle centrist as well as some who have always voted for Republicans. The reason - he wasn't kidding. He wasn't the posh political candidate from the Democratic Party, and sure, he was opposite Hillary Clinton - whom a lot of folks just didn't like (I would be the first to state that Hillary was unfairly criticized on many counts, and that she did a great job as Senator and Secretary of State for the most part. There is no doubt that she was absolutely qualified). 

 

Warren is a capitalist by root of all her programs/plans. You need to change folks minds, and to do this you do need a plan that you can fully outline. I believe Warren can do this. 

Regarding Single-payer. https://prospect.org/article/are-voters-willing-pay-18-percent-gdp-on-health-care

 

Some of the issue has to do with the complicated mess we have regarding healthcare in general. We pay a lot already, way way too much. The act of going to single-payer healthcare does not diminish anyone's healthcare - that needs to be a cogent part of the discussion. Nor does going to single-payer resolve all the high-cost problems that we have as a country. The biggest hurdle it will do is give healthcare to all. So the first thing we have to do is realize all the current hidden cost. Bring those costs out into the daylight. But even if we got to single-payer, it's important to note that it's only a good start. 

 

Robert Reich is great at presenting economic and political issues in a short and sweet way. It would be good to start here with any plan or policy notion.

 

Where Your Tax Dollars Really Go

ROBERT REICH

AUGUST 6, 2019

Contrary to Republican talking points, programs like welfare and food stamps make up a tiny fraction of the federal budget. 

 
ap_19189537166995.jpg?itok=P5erUcAi
Patrick Semansky/AP Image

The U.S. Capitol dome Washington

Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress claim that America spends too much on things like food stamps, welfare, and foreign aid. 

But let’s look at how the government actually spends your federal tax dollars each year. We’re going to look at what’s known as the “discretionary budget,” which has to be reappropriated by Congress each year.

Start with foreign aid, the conservatives’ favorite boogeyman. It’s $29 billion a year. That may sound like a lot but it’s only 2 percent of all discretionary spending. Add all spending on international affairs, it’s 4 percent.

What about science and technology, including NASA, the National Science Foundation, and research in clean energy, which conservatives love to hate? Just 3 percent.

The environment and natural resources—money for clean air, safe drinking water, and protecting public lands? Another 3 percent.

Roads, bridges, highways, airports, all transportation funding: Another 3 percent.

Community and regional development: 2 percent.

Law enforcement, the Department of Justice, the entire federal court system: 5 percent

The Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and rural health clinics: 5 percent.

Food stamps, energy assistance, child care, other income security: Just 6 percent.

Education and workforce training gets just 7 percent.

Veterans benefits account for 7 percent of the budget as well.

All other government services–including Energy, Agriculture, and Commerce–account for only 1 percent of the discretionary budget.

But that’s only 46 percent. The remaining 54 percent of annual spending is on the militarywhich is more spent on the military than the next 7 nations combined. It’s huge. It’s about the only really big thing the federal government does.

You may be thinking, but what about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act? 

By law, these programs are mandatory spending, which don’t require Congress to approve funding every year. Americans have paid into Social Security and Medicare over their entire working lives.

Yet they’re still vulnerable. In fact, if Trump and Republicans in Congress aren’t going to cut discretionary spending—especially on the military—the only places they can look to make way for more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  

That’s been their goal all along. 

Know where the money is really going. And know what they have in mind. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military spending is definitely too much.  My quibbles here aren't with your conclusion, I just feel the need to give more context to the numbers. 

 

These numbers are focused on "discretionary" spending, which is less than 30% of the budget.  The division into "discretionary" and "mandatory" spending is an illusion.  So called "mandatory" spending isn't really mandatory...it just doesn't require any positive action to continue it.  It's only mandatory until Congress decides it isn't.  These numbers also ignore interest on the debt.  Although it's currently only about 6% of the overall budget, that could rise quickly if interest rates go up.  

 

Unless Congress acts, Social Security faces certain cuts with absolutely no action required by the Republicans.  Due to demographics (more old people, fewer paying in) Social Security will see approximately a 20% cut once the trust fund runs out sometime around 2035.  Democrats are 'on the clock' to get this fixed.  Republicans don't need to do anything except stall.

 

Military spending is 54% of 30% which means it's actually less than 16% of the federal budget.  It's certainly way too high, maybe 10% would be a robust number, but the 54% number is misleading. 

 

It's also misleading to directly compare US military spending to other nations, China for example, on a dollar for dollar basis.  The US pays far higher rates for personnel (salaries, pensions, benefits, etc.).

 

 

total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png

 

We will need a new chart if Bernie spends $1,600 billion in an instant on student debt relief.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

warrens ideas cost as much as the yearly budget to run

 

not that her ideas are not what is needed but the money she would need is not hidden is the budget

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were Warren, (or any of the more Progressive Democratic hopefuls) to be elected president, even if there were Democratic super-majorities in both houses, she would be unlikely to get more than a small part of her agenda signed into law.  Too many Democratic senators and congressmen are obligated to corporate lobbyists and big money donors.  And many Democratic lawmakers are ideologically far to the right of Warren.  But if the Senate were to remain majority Republican, Warren's hands would be all but tied.

 

She could implement some programs by executive order, but they are are subject to quick repeal by the next administration.  Executive orders can be overturned by Congress.  And the Supreme Court, now with a Conservative majority,  can block an executive order as unconstitutional.

 

Andrew Yang is running on on a "Freedom Dividend" of $12,000 yearly for all citizens.  Is that likely to happen in his first 4 years of office?  Or even in a second term?  Maybe not.

 

That said, a president has the bully pulpit and can be highly influential in shaping domestic and foreign policy, for years to come.  A lot depends on how skillfully the president wields his/her weighty influence.  Warren's ideas CAN eventually be implemented in the United States as proved by countries like Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Singapore and Germany.  It involves changing the tax structure, among other things.  But if Warren became president, it wouldn't happen right away.  However, should the electorate swing left, over time, and the government come under long-term Democratic rule, it's possible that Warren's agenda and more could be accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 9:55 AM, bludog said:

Were Warren, (or any of the more Progressive Democratic hopefuls) to be elected president, even if there were Democratic super-majorities in both houses, she would be unlikely to get more than a small part of her agenda signed into law.  Too many Democratic senators and congressmen are obligated to corporate lobbyists and big money donors.  And many Democratic lawmakers are ideologically far to the right of Warren.  But if the Senate were to remain majority Republican, Warren's hands would be all but tied.

 

She could implement some programs by executive order, but they are are subject to quick repeal by the next administration.  Executive orders can be overturned by Congress.  And the Supreme Court, now with a Conservative majority,  can block an executive order as unconstitutional.

 

Andrew Yang is running on on a "Freedom Dividend" of $12,000 yearly for all citizens.  Is that likely to happen in his first 4 years of office?  Or even in a second term?  Maybe not.

 

That said, a president has the bully pulpit and can be highly influential in shaping domestic and foreign policy, for years to come.  A lot depends on how skillfully the president wields his/her weighty influence.  Warren's ideas CAN eventually be implemented in the United States as proved by countries like Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Singapore and Germany.  It involves changing the tax structure, among other things.  But if Warren became president, it wouldn't happen right away.  However, should the electorate swing left, over time, and the government come under long-term Democratic rule, it's possible that Warren's agenda and more could be accomplished.

I think we need big time structural changes, but you're correct to think that it ain't going to come overnight. Like you say, the president has the bully pulpit and it's the long-term view that needs to constantly be pursued. If someone like Warren were to be elected with both houses going to the Democrats, it would be vital that they got something important done that the majority of people liked. Otherwise we'd go back two steps like we've been doing for thirty or forty years now. We've got to be bold and change this pattern of moving right of center all the time. We also have to stop the division in this country. 

 

We had eight years of Clinton. What happen to the Clinton voters who voted for that guy even after his impeachment by the house? I voted for Nader at that point. Another huge issue is the lack of progressive voter turnout in the congressional elections between presidential elections. You just can't do that if you expect real change.

And another thing - what about this seemingly global move towards Nationalism (nativism)? The US needs to fight back against this big time. We do need to be bold regarding Climate Change policy and understand why more and more people are having to resort to migration. We simply cannot tolerate another 4 years of Trump, 

no two ways about it. 

 

Peace!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We as a nation need to be more left of center, its beyond frustrating the knuckleheads in NHB think the opposite despite strong data that proves otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, fourputt said:

We as a nation need to be more left of center, its beyond frustrating the knuckleheads in NHB think the opposite despite strong data that proves otherwise.

 Hello there. I guess I'm one of those knuckle heads from NHB. While I believe Warren would make a fantastic president, and would kick THE PIG's ass in any debate, she doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the vote from the farm, the rust, and the bible belts. They're not ready for a female president. Especially someone as progressive as her. Maybe someday, but this is not that day. She will not even get the black vote let alone a corn farmer's vote. We need to stick with a white male former VP. He's our only hope to get the votes that matter, and flyover country has those votes. This is not logical, but it is true. Do I sound like Mr. Spock? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say we should stop giving a damn about the center.

 

It's okay if we have to bide our time with Biden for transitional change.

 

But I hope Elizabeth Warren is waiting in the wings as Vice President to make this sixteen years of change that ends up being the transformational kind in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too could support Biden and I will, should he win the nomination.  But can he win once the gaffes start to pile up?  Judging by his past track record, he can't edit himself.

 

Trump regularly goes beyond gaffes and into delusional, paranoid assertions like "I am the chosen one"  or " I am like the king of Israel".  Material that would get Trump committed to the loony bin does him no harm with his base.  Maybe this is because Trump is truly bonkers, believes what he says and always doubles down on his absurdities;   But Biden has to make excuses for his.

 

The media will hold Biden accountable for every slip of the tongue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would of course vote for Biden if he wins the primary. But that's a long time away at this point. I really hope Warren can make a lot of people change their minds. One middle of the road candidate who I also like is Amy Klobuchar. She's more left of center than Biden, and also it's about time we had a women president!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

I say we should stop giving a damn about the center.

 

It's okay if we have to bide our time with Biden for transitional change.

 

But I hope Elizabeth Warren is waiting in the wings as Vice President to make this sixteen years of change that ends up being the transformational kind in the end.

 All we need to do is get our foot in the door. Then we may be able to make some changes, but major change can't happen with just a democratic president in office, we have to wipe out the republican swine in the senate also. We can eliminate these insane executive orders, and that's a big step, but we need to do more if we want to see our country restored to some level of decency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

I would of course vote for Biden if he wins the primary. But that's a long time away at this point. I really hope Warren can make a lot of people change their minds. One middle of the road candidate who I also like is Amy Klobuchar. She's more left of center than Biden, and also it's about time we had a women president!

I have a big problem with Biden thinking that he's going to be able to make this latest version of the GOP want to even do the most popular legislation. McConnell would just assume  let every damn bridge collapse in his state before voting any infrastructure bill into law as long as there is a Democrat in the WH especially the former VP under Obama. I remember the glare of hate he wore during the state of the union and could only imagine the words circling inside his head. Biden thinks or is trying to sell that he can make someone like McConnell work with him? What we need if not Warren (though I think she can win) is a president who is not afraid to call some of these folks like McConnell out for what they are and let the other ones who are sheepishly following along know no more of this petty crap will be tolerated. One thing that is crystal clear regarding Biden he will not bring up for nomination an AG who will prosecute Trump that much is for sure and this country and the people in it cannot have someone that will allow what has taken place go unaccounted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Democrat is going to be able to work with McConnell. The solution is to replace him as majority leader by flipping the Senate to the Democrats. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The  way I see it, the most intelligent candidates are Warren and Buttigeig. Biden has the most experience and perhaps the best connections. I will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, there are none I really dislike. We need a combination of RFK 's charisma and LBJ's  political expertise.  None seems to be present as of yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 1:11 PM, fourputt said:

I have a big problem with Biden thinking that he's going to be able to make this latest version of the GOP want to even do the most popular legislation. McConnell would just assume  let every damn bridge collapse in his state before voting any infrastructure bill into law as long as there is a Democrat in the WH especially the former VP under Obama. I remember the glare of hate he wore during the state of the union and could only imagine the words circling inside his head. Biden thinks or is trying to sell that he can make someone like McConnell work with him? What we need if not Warren (though I think she can win) is a president who is not afraid to call some of these folks like McConnell out for what they are and let the other ones who are sheepishly following along know no more of this petty crap will be tolerated. One thing that is crystal clear regarding Biden he will not bring up for nomination an AG who will prosecute Trump that much is for sure and this country and the people in it cannot have someone that will allow what has taken place go unaccounted for.

I think you make a major point here! We need a big fighter now. Someone who will remind us all why inequality has risen so much in the last forty years --- and not by any accident. 

Climate change, healthcare, infrastructure repair, along with inequality - it's all tied together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 5:46 PM, JeanMoulin said:

 Hello there. I guess I'm one of those knuckle heads from NHB. While I believe Warren would make a fantastic president, and would kick THE PIG's ass in any debate, she doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the vote from the farm, the rust, and the bible belts. They're not ready for a female president. Especially someone as progressive as her. Maybe someday, but this is not that day. She will not even get the black vote let alone a corn farmer's vote. We need to stick with a white male former VP. He's our only hope to get the votes that matter, and flyover country has those votes. This is not logical, but it is true. Do I sound like Mr. Spock? LOL

The mopes are already proclaiming that AOC is the ideological head of the Democratic Party.

The incredible lies that will be told are going to turn your stomach.

Logic will be the victim in the next election, just like the last one.

Winning at all costs may be the only way to save the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheOldBarn said:

I think you make a major point here! We need a big fighter now. Someone who will remind us all why inequality has risen so much in the last forty years --- and not by any accident. 

Climate change, healthcare, infrastructure repair, along with inequality - it's all tied together. 

Reagan and Bush have already demonstrated that someone behind the curtain can run the country.

The "big fighter" need not be the POTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Reagan and Bush have already demonstrated that someone behind the curtain can run the country.

The "big fighter" need not be the POTUS.

Interesting comment. I think I see what you mean. Reagan, and GWB were both driven by people in their administrations. Of course, the right is well equipped with keeping all their peeps in order so that they stay inline with the playbook which was so carefully outlined by some rich folk Libertarian type who highly value what has been called the Chicago School of Economic Theory, made popular by Milton Friedman. Not to mention the war dogs.

 

But it does help to have a fighter as POTUS who fights for the people. Of course that's not enough. You also need both houses filled with folks who actually work for the people as well. How could that ever happen? Tell a good story... FDR did, but of course that was during the great depression. And prior to that we had the inequality of the robber barons during the gilded age.

It's a difficult endeavor - but climate change is very real, and very very deadly if not dealt with. 

 

Peace!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

Interesting comment. I think I see what you mean. Reagan, and GWB were both driven by people in their administrations. Of course, the right is well equipped with keeping all their peeps in order so that they stay inline with the playbook which was so carefully outlined by some rich folk Libertarian type who highly value what has been called the Chicago School of Economic Theory, made popular by Milton Friedman. Not to mention the war dogs.

 

But it does help to have a fighter as POTUS who fights for the people. Of course that's not enough. You also need both houses filled with folks who actually work for the people as well. How could that ever happen? Tell a good story... FDR did, but of course that was during the great depression. And prior to that we had the inequality of the robber barons during the gilded age.

It's a difficult endeavor - but climate change is very real, and very very deadly if not dealt with. 

 

Peace!

 

Yes,

climate change is real, and deadly.

But,

many years ago,

it wasn't referred to as climate change.

Back then, people talked about RUNNING OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS.

I can't understand how any of the "conservative" fools could dispute the fact that the earth does not have an infinite supply of fossil fuel?

While they can come up with idiot arguments to dispute climate change, how could they dispute the eventual depletion.

Although,

on another site, I did see some idiot postulate that "god" creates more fuel underground, we just don't see it.

I also can't understand why the eventual scarcity of fuel isn't treated as the motivator for alternative energy?

 

It took about 150 years to get where we are, and the technology hasn't changed that much.

People are SO impressed with all the "new" technology coming to the market daily.

Except,

I remember working on some of the "new" stuff 50 years ago. Meaning, it took those 50 years for it to be perfected sufficiently to be saleable. Can you say "picture phone"?

 

If alternative fuel technology takes 50 years to develop IN VOLUME, our grandchildren are in DEEP TROUBLE.

The alternative fuel technology that we currently have HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF SUPPORTING THE ECONOMY, AS IS.

The existing alternative fuel technology is about as sophisticated as a Model T Ford, compared to a modern automobile.

Remember, nuclear energy WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ALTERNATIVE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 4:12 PM, WillFranklin said:

I say we should stop giving a damn about the center.

 

It's okay if we have to bide our time with Biden for transitional change.

 

But I hope Elizabeth Warren is waiting in the wings as Vice President to make this sixteen years of change that ends up being the transformational kind in the end.

She's too old for that, she's turning 71 before the election next year and would be nearly 88 years old if she got 2 terms after Biden. It's now or never for a Warren presidency and I'm changing my ideal ticket to Warren/Yang now that's a pairing that could get us 16 years and maybe a freedom dividend to boot. If that UBI ever got passed there is no way a Republican could ever get rid of it unless they wanted to commit political suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, fourputt said:

She's too old for that, she's turning 71 before the election next year and would be nearly 88 years old if she got 2 terms after Biden. It's now or never for a Warren presidency and I'm changing my ideal ticket to Warren/Yang now that's a pairing that could get us 16 years and maybe a freedom dividend to boot. If that UBI ever got passed there is no way a Republican could ever get rid of it unless they wanted to commit political suicide.

 

I would support all of that but can any of it get passed in the first place?

 

Maybe health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, fourputt said:

It's now or never for a Warren presidency and I'm changing my ideal ticket to Warren/Yang now that's a pairing that could get us 16 years and maybe a freedom dividend to boot. If that UBI ever got passed there is no way a Republican could ever get rid of it unless they wanted to commit political suicide.

 

Amen to that !

A not inconceivable, Progressive ticket which would have the potential to finally reverse our steady slide to the right of the last 45 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

Amen to that !

A not inconceivable, Progressive ticket which would have the potential to finally reverse our steady slide to the right of the last 45 years.

 

Do you mean the Democratic party's shift right or the nation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, laton said:

Do you mean the Democratic party's shift right or the nation?

 

Good get.  When I wrote it, I was thinking primarily of the nation.  But, in the last 45 years, our party has shifted to the right also and the influence of a Warren/Yang administration would surely reverse that trend;  possibly for a long time to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2019 at 9:34 AM, bludog said:

 

Good get.  When I wrote it, I was thinking primarily of the nation.  But, in the last 45 years, our party has shifted to the right also and the influence of a Warren/Yang administration would surely reverse that trend;  possibly for a long time to come.

 

With a warren and yang ticket people would be able to see the true nature of a progressive agenda and not one that is the centrist watered down version. 

With that kind of ticket we have the highest amount of systematic change ever since the instuition of the New Deal under FDR and I think that the country would benefit greatly and start to compete in things on the world scale for example schooling, healthcare and universal childcare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...