Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => American Politics => Topic started by: Queefer Sutherland on June 28, 2019, 10:45:22 am
-
Anybody watch these debates this week? Impressions of any candidates?
-I never heard Buttigieg speak before, he was somewhat impressive. Was reasonable and to the point.
-Joe Biden did poorly, they really exposed his weaknesses.
-Kamala Harris was a savage as usual, but literally every time she talks she seems really angry. She'll destroy Trump in the debates which would be fun to watch but does the world need more anger like that in a POTUS?
- Beto O'Rourke spoke almost nothing but vague rehearsed talking points, and him speaking spanish all the time made me roll my eyes. The voters are not latin migrants.
- Elizabeth Warren was ok, but she seems more idealistic sometimes than practical.
- Bernie Sanders was good ol' Bernie in his usual form.
-
-Joe Biden did poorly, they really exposed his weaknesses.
Which can be good or bad... if he ends up becoming the nominee despite these problems, the GOP now can treat him as 'damaged goods'. (But then, that's the nature of U.S. primary politics.)
-Kamala Harris was a savage as usual, but literally every time she talks she seems really angry. She'll destroy Trump in the debates which would be fun to watch but does the world need more anger like that in a POTUS?
I think there is a difference between rational arguments put forward in a forceful manor (a la Harris) and the type of illogical rantings that Trump engages in.
I do have concerns that should she become the Democratic nominee that her 'anger' will be seen as being 'oh, just a shrill woman'.
- Elizabeth Warren was ok, but she seems more idealistic sometimes than practical.
The whole 'I will ban private health care' would be extremely problematic for her.
-
Anybody watch these debates this week? Impressions of any candidates?
I only caught some of the excerpts, but I would say Harris/Buttigieg would be a good ticket, or perhaps Harris/Biden.
-
I only caught some of the excerpts, but I would say Harris/Buttigieg would be a good ticket, or perhaps Harris/Biden.
We shall see shortly how Biden does at the gay pride parade in Chicago after the tussle with Harris yesterday.
-
Which can be good or bad... if he ends up becoming the nominee despite these problems, the GOP now can treat him as 'damaged goods'. (But then, that's the nature of U.S. primary politics.)
Biden is the front runner because he's by far the most recognizable name, and has a strong association to Obama. But IMO the guy just isn't a great politician. He lost to Obama and Clinton in the primaries in 2008 for a reason, they just out-classed him as candidates. He didn't seem as up on the issues as many of the other candidates, he didn't seem to have as strong of a vision as the other or even the same hunger for it, that was just my impressions from the debate. He didn't seem polished, meanwhile the others all looked very eager and prepared to win.
I do have concerns that should she become the Democratic nominee that her 'anger' will be seen as being 'oh, just a shrill woman'.
The thing is though is that anger is all i've ever seen from Harris. I loved her in her examination of Kavanaugh as did everyone else, and she was angry as she should have been. But every answer in the debates it's like she was PO'd. I can listen to that for certain answers but i can't imagine voters want to listen to a POTUS complain with fury all of the time. She's one tough cookie which i love but she needs a more measured side too, a side that is more positive & hopeful.
So far Buttigeig is my favorite. He's a mayor, he graduated from Harvard and Oxford as a Rhode Scholar. He served in the military as a navy reserve and served 7 months in Afghanistan. He's also the first openly gay POTUS candidate, not sure how they would go over in the general election. He's only 37 y/o but talks like he's 57.
-
Warren has plans but at this point I need 20 years of liberal governments to trust the USA.
-
What makes you think you could trust the USA with 20 years of liberal governments any more than the normal "coin toss" American governments?
I think Buttegieg will be criticized for being "barely legal" (he's two years over the minimum for the Presidency). Biden's old and Harris I read about destroying him in the debates over issues of race.
-
I don't know. 20 years seems like a strong number. 40 years would be waiting too long and 10 not enough.
-
What makes you think you could trust the USA with 20 years of liberal governments any more than the normal "coin toss" American governments?
I think the problem is that at this point the Republicans have shed any decency or reliability they may have had. (Although Trump may be the most obvious example of this, their 'dirty tricks' have gone back over a decade, thanks in part to people like the Turtle. And the fact that Trump continues to enjoy significant support among the republicans suggests that whatever failings led to his election in the first place still exist.
2 decades ago, it would have been fine to just 'toss a coin'. After all, presidents like Bush Sr. seemed to be relatively decent guys. But its no longer that way. They appear to be scumbags, through and through. Until the republicans spend at least a generation in the political wilderness, they will not have learned their lesson, and we should not trust them at all.
-
I think Buttegieg will be criticized for being "barely legal" (he's two years over the minimum for the Presidency).
Yes Buttigieg is already being criticized for his age (37), but his advantage is he looks and speaks like someone older.
Biden has taken a beating in post-debate polls, as i said he had a really bad showing, not even including his face-off with Harris. Warren and Harris got a good bump in polls.
Warren and Bernie seem like the nicest people on the face of the planet.
-
Yes Buttigieg is already being criticized for his age (37), but his advantage is he looks and speaks like someone older.
Biden has taken a beating in post-debate polls, as i said he had a really bad showing, not even including his face-off with Harris. Warren and Harris got a good bump in polls.
Warren and Bernie seem like the nicest people on the face of the planet.
Maybe compared to Trump...
But Warren and Sanders constantly promise things they know they won't be able to, and therefore won't have to, deliver; such as free university.
-
Maybe compared to Trump...
But Warren and Sanders constantly promise things they know they won't be able to, and therefore won't have to, deliver; such as free university.
They're idealistic dreamers. The fact that a lot of US voters don't even want those things makes it even stranger they would say those things.
-
But Warren and Sanders constantly promise things they know they won't be able to, and therefore won't have to, deliver; such as free university.
You mean like in Germany, one of the strongest economies there is.
-
You mean like in Germany, one of the strongest economies there is.
His point was that the POTUS almost certainly can't deliver some of the things they promise. It's not a comment on whether those things desirable or not.
-
Maybe compared to Trump...
But Warren and Sanders constantly promise things they know they won't be able to, and therefore won't have to, deliver; such as free university.
They're idealistic dreamers. The fact that a lot of US voters don't even want those things makes it even stranger they would say those things.
Which is a problem, since promising things that people don't want can lead to accusations of 'throwing money away' or 'tax and spend'.
I do realize that some people may want things like free college, but its certainly not universal, and right now the majority oppose it (52% oppose, 45% support.)
Frankly, I think Canada has managed to strike the right balance... university/college isn't completely free, but much of the cost is highly subsidized, and significant student loans are provided, so college/university should be obtainable by almost anyone. (We actually have more post-secondary enrollment/graduates per capita than Denmark or Norway, both countries with free post-secondary tuition.)
-
I do realize that some people may want things like free college, but its certainly not universal, and right now the majority oppose it (52% oppose, 45% support.)
Frankly, I think Canada has managed to strike the right balance... university/college isn't completely free, but much of the cost is highly subsidized, and significant student loans are provided, so college/university should be obtainable by almost anyone. (We actually have more post-secondary enrollment/graduates per capita than Denmark or Norway, both countries with free post-secondary tuition.)
I agree, Canada seems to have a good balance.
In the US, community college (which Bernie et al. want to be free) isn't even that expensive). Tuition is a few thousand dollars. It's the big ivy league colleges that are ridiculously expensive, and reinforces the inequality.
-
They're idealistic dreamers. The fact that a lot of US voters don't even want those things makes it even stranger they would say those things.
Which is a problem, since promising things that people don't want can lead to accusations of 'throwing money away' or 'tax and spend'.
I do realize that some people may want things like free college, but its certainly not universal, and right now the majority oppose it (52% oppose, 45% support.)
Frankly, I think Canada has managed to strike the right balance... university/college isn't completely free, but much of the cost is highly subsidized, and significant student loans are provided, so college/university should be obtainable by almost anyone. (We actually have more post-secondary enrollment/graduates per capita than Denmark or Norway, both countries with free post-secondary tuition.)
I think we need to strike a better balance with cheaper university and interest-free loans...
The American system is highly subsidized as well... it's just that it means more profit for private colleges, rather than translating into cheaper tuition. It's a pretty gross system.
-
Sme of the high costs of tuition in U.S. universities is the result of the cost of administration. There was an article about this in the NYT and I'm damned if I can find it. If I do, I'll give you all the link.
-
It's fascinating that this long drawn out process helps the incumbent so much. It's still almost a year until the Dems will have a candidate and all the infighting helps Trump.
They should just have a convention a year out and have the candidate as a "sort of" opposition leader.
-
It's fascinating that this long drawn out process helps the incumbent so much. It's still almost a year until the Dems will have a candidate and all the infighting helps Trump.
always in perpetual campaign mode! And yet little attention is actually given to policy - unless things change I expect the lame-assed media will help to, once again, elect Trump! 4 more years!
(https://i.imgur.com/OyaGOG8.jpg)
-
Anyone watch the CNN debates from this week?
-
Anyone watch the CNN debates from this week?
Yep. I have my money on a Biden/Warren team.
-
Watched the first CNN debate. Bernie Sanders and Marianne Williamson impressed me the most. Warren was 3rd, she did well, though she seemed a bit soft on foreign policy. Buttigieg was flat, Beto is a knob and i've never liked him.
I'll watch the 2nd debate when i get some time.
-
Yep. I have my money on a Biden/Warren team.
Well, sure but... front runners never team up anymore. I think maybe Johnson+JFK was the last one ?
-
Or Bush I and Reagan, in 1980.
-
Well, sure but... front runners never team up anymore. I think maybe Johnson+JFK was the last one ?
What I like about this match up is Biden has the experience around the White House and Warren has the brains. Warren specialized in bankruptcy law, and the way Trump is handling things they made need expertise in that area. Too bad they both weren't a bit younger.
-
What I like about this match up is Biden has the experience around the White House and Warren has the brains. Warren specialized in bankruptcy law, and the way Trump is handling things they made need expertise in that area. Too bad they both weren't a bit younger.
How about Biden puts Warren at the table for policy making ? He seems to be the most reluctant Presidential candidate ever, anyhow. How about Biden resigns after the mid-terms ?
-
Warren has that silly idea of a "wealth tax".
-
Warren has that silly idea of a "wealth tax".
Well, it might be silly but will it even pass ?
And as a reaction to a period of over-capitulation to the wealthy and powerful is it not understandable, politically ?
And is it sillier than increasing spending and blowing the deficit wide open in good times ?
And isn't the entire American political economy a ridiculous waste of resources and squandering of opportunity ?
Doesn't it seem petty to decry a wealth tax in a system with so many problems, not to mention barriers to prosperity for the poor ?
-
A wealth tax isn't a silly idea.
-k
-
Warren has that silly idea of a "wealth tax".
Why exactly do you consider it 'silly'?
A significant number of wealthy people pay little or no tax because they don't have 'income' in the regular sense. The gini coefficient (which measures wealth inequality) in the U.S. has been increasing steadily. The U.S. has a huge deficit and needs to upgrade certain infrastructure.
If not a 'wealth tax', what do you suggest the U.S. do to handle its fiscal problems?
-
I hate to sound like a Libertarian or a Republican but that's just taking money out of somebody's bank account rather than their income. The Libertarians are known for saying "All taxation is theft!" Personally, I would rather not turn their boo-hoo cries into reality. I have a feeling the Supreme Court would strike it down and a hypothetical Pres. Warren will say "oh, well I tried guys!" (probably knowing all along that that would happen anyway.)
Um, what is this "significant number" and how much aren't they paying? If you earn interest in the United States, it's taxable, as is capital gains. Unless these wealthy people you refer to are saving their millions under a huge mattress they're paying interest/capital gains taxes to Uncle Sam.
Now, with Warren's "wealth tax" these rich people (and probably other people a lot poorer than them, as well) won't bother to put all their savings in banks. That's how it works: People get loans from the bank for a house, car, etc., because a bunch of depositors have put their money in that bank (at interest) for the bank to lend out (at slightly more interest). Institute a wealth tax and it will be harder for banks to find the deposits they need to thrive and, in consequence, there will be less money to lend out. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will just get really big Scrooge McDuckian vaults in their basements, or, worse, funnel it to banks in the Cayman Islands or other tax havens. Our wealth inequality will not be affected one iota, and you'll mostly **** off the middle class.
It would at the least cause a very serious recession, as banks will scramble to get deposits. And scramble they will, because who the hell anywhere in the world wants to open a bank account in a country that will just raid it? Gotta think of the end result and consequences, rather than catering to a bunch of people (millennials mostly) who don't understand how banks work. I don't think Bernie Sanders was stupid enough to propose that one.
-
I hate to sound like a Libertarian or a Republican but that's just taking money out of somebody's bank account rather than their income....
So, do you propose increasing the income tax rate rather than imposing a wealth tax?
If you earn interest in the United States, it's taxable, as is capital gains.
Yes, interest is payable, but interest rates are rather low. Its not a vehicle that major investors would necessarily worry about.
Capital gains are also payable, but if I understand correctly, they are only counted at the time the asset is actually sold. So, if you bought something that was cheap and its now worth millions, you can actually sit on your investment indefinitely. You could be a multi-billionaire because you bought a few picassos at a yard sale, and never pay any tax on their increased value because you never sell them.
Now, with Warren's "wealth tax" these rich people (and probably other people a lot poorer than them, as well) won't bother to put all their savings in banks.
I doubt many wealthy people put their money in banks now. I suspect they mostly invest it, either in stocks, or real estate, or some other item that will either increase in value or will provide income. (And indeed, that is the type of things that most wealth taxes target... not necessarily money stuck in a bank somewhere.)
Sticking it in a bank account just won't provide that type of return.
That's how it works: People get loans from the bank for a house, car, etc., because a bunch of depositors have put their money in that bank (at interest) for the bank to lend out (at slightly more interest). Institute a wealth tax and it will be harder for banks to find the deposits they need to thrive and, in consequence, there will be less money to lend out.
First of all, you're not talking about taking all wealth, only a small fraction of it and only from certain people. I doubt a wealth tax will cause banks to become insolvent because a tiny fraction of wealthy people have slightly less money, which they probably weren't storing in the banks anyways.
Secondly, keep in mind that if the wealthy loses a few million to a wealth tax, that money doesn't just disappear... it would get recirculated in the economy. Some might go to infrastructure that expands the overall economy. Some might result in higher wages for middle class workers that then get deposited in banks (to be lent out again).
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will just get really big Scrooge McDuckian vaults in their basements, or, worse, funnel it to banks in the Cayman Islands or other tax havens. Our wealth inequality will not be affected one iota, and you'll mostly **** off the middle class.
Strangely enough, both Gates and Buffet have called for increased taxes on the wealthy.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/25/warren-buffett-and-bill-gates-the-rich-should-pay-higher-taxes.html
"The wealthy are definitely undertaxed relative to the general population" - Warren Buffet
"I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes." - Bill Gates
Now, as far as I know, neither has called specifically for a "wealth tax", but other wealthy people have:
From: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/richest-could-lose-hundreds-billions-080000068.html
Billionaire investor George Soros, heiress Abigail Disney and 17 other wealthy individuals published an open letter in June in support of Warren’s wealth tax and said lawmakers have a moral responsibility to levy higher taxes on the rich.
Hmmm... Soros studied economics at university and became wealthy through financial dealings. Do you think he has an idea of what he's talking about?
As for the chance that they may put it in a 'scrooge-like vault' or funnel it to offshore accounts: Again, we're not simply talking about taxing bank accounts. We're talking about a wealth tax, that includes investments like real estate, stocks, etc. Kind of hard to ship those to some offshore bank.
I could also point out that even if it were possible to send your assets off shore to protect them from taxes, it might be a very dumb thing to do. Those offshore accounts tend not to pay much in the way of interest. So, any wealthy person thinking "I'll just send my money to the Caymen islands to avoid the wealth tax" may save on taxes but will lose even more because their investments won't grow as much as if they left it in North America.
It would at the least cause a very serious recession, as banks will scramble to get deposits. And scramble they will, because who the hell anywhere in the world wants to open a bank account in a country that will just raid it? Gotta think of the end result and consequences, rather than catering to a bunch of people (millennials mostly) who don't understand how banks work. I don't think Bernie Sanders was stupid enough to propose that one.
Well, lets see... Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland all have wealth taxes, and none of those countries is in recession.
Now, some countries have dropped their wealth taxes, but it wasn't because "OMG! Its causing a recession!", but more because of difficulties in enforcing the tax.
And what makes you think people proposing a "wealth tax" don't know how banks work?
-
How do you quote something line by line? I am having trouble isolating a particular block of text I want to quote rather than the whole thing.
-
isolating a particular block of text
I just quote the whole thing, and then edit out the rest.
rather than the whole thing.
If I want another block then I go back and "insert quote" and again edit out what I don't want.
-
Ugh. OK. Let me just cut and paste in italics or something. It's time for dinner, though. I will commence my rebuttal after having a couple of hamburgers in me first.
-
Kamala Harris, she done
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/03/spectacular-collapse-kamala-harris-2020-074982
-k
-
I'm little surprised she quit before the first primary but I haven't been following that close. Unless you are a billionaire, money is a huge disincentive to running in the US.
-
She needs to learn how to not talk like a prosecutor every minute of every second. Otherwise i like her, but the schtick gets old.
-
I'm little surprised she quit before the first primary but I haven't been following that close. Unless you are a billionaire, money is a huge disincentive to running in the US.
And just look where electing at least a self described billionaire got them now! Watching Macron outsmart Donny was funny.
-
Kamala Harris, she done
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/03/spectacular-collapse-kamala-harris-2020-074982
There may have been some hints before hand that her campaign was in trouble...
From: https://www.wthr.com/article/kamala-harris-aide-leaves-bloomberg-campaign-after-scathing-resignation-letter
Kamala Harris' campaign aide Kelly Mehlenbacher tore into the campaign she served as States Operations Director, saying, "this is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly."...She goes on to detail a work environment with low morale that lacked planning or a vision for how to win... Democratic House Representative Marcia Fudge of Ohio, who endorsed Harris, has been critical of some of Harris' top aides...
Mehlenbacher's resignation came a day or 2 before Harris dropped out of the race.