Author Topic: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color  (Read 28904 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18273
    • View Profile
Re: Warren's challenge, Sean Trende
« Reply #150 on: October 19, 2019, 05:16:34 PM »
Warren will lose bigly.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/18/would_warrens_ideology_weaken_her_as_democrats_nominee_141525.html

It is not that she is liberal. It is that the issues on which she has taken the most prominent liberal stances are issues that are likely to give suburban whites pause. In particular, her pledge to abolish private insurance  is likely to cause resistance among suburbanites, many of whom have top-notch health care plans.

You may be thinking, “But Republicans will accuse any Democrat of being an extremist on health care.” This is probably true. But most Democrats will be able to run commercials and point to speeches denying the claim. For voters who want to vote Democratic, that will probably be enough. Warren, however, has to make a different argument: “Yes, I want to do away with private insurance, but your anxiety over Medicare for All is misplaced.” That’s a much tougher sell, as it forces voters to abandon their preconceived notions, rather than supplement them.

Or, as one of my readers put it: There’s a big difference between having a Republican attack ad run against you, and running on a Republican attack ad.

Will it be enough to sink Warren? I don’t know.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Warren, On the right side of Hong Kong?
« Reply #151 on: October 19, 2019, 05:18:31 PM »
Give credit where credit is due, Warren sides with Marco Rubio and Tim Scott on Hong Kong:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3033466/top-us-democratic-candidate-elizabeth-warren-backs-hong-kong-pro

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18273
    • View Profile
Re: Elizabeth Warren, On the right side of Hong Kong?
« Reply #152 on: October 19, 2019, 08:15:23 PM »
Funny, given that her policies align much closer to the People's Republic.


Give credit where credit is due, Warren sides with Marco Rubio and Tim Scott on Hong Kong:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3033466/top-us-democratic-candidate-elizabeth-warren-backs-hong-kong-pro

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Warren needs to pick Sanders as her running mate
« Reply #153 on: October 20, 2019, 06:49:05 AM »
Warren needs to pick Sanders as her running mate.  If she picks a so-called 'moderate' to 'balance' the ticket she dilutes her own brand and weakens her own arguments.  If Single Payer/Medicare for All is the right answer, the best vice presidential pick is someone who also supports it.  Trump wants to run against socialism and the Left thinks all these young people want socialism, why no double down on it and call the question?

The goal of Warren and Sanders candidacies is not to tone down Leftism; the goal is to win with it.
--------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-scores-aoc-michael-moore-endorsements-clash-warren-inevitable-ncna1068806

« Last Edit: October 20, 2019, 06:57:36 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Bloomberg: Warren fools no one when she avoids Medicare for all tax talk
« Reply #154 on: October 20, 2019, 07:33:30 AM »
https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/elizabeth-warren-s-medicare-for-all-plan-will-need-higher-taxes
-------------------------
I hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on the new front runner.    :wink:

Why can't Democrats pick someone more honest then Trump, too high of a bar?

We've known known for more than 2000 years what happens when government gets too big and too powerful in our lives but it all sounds new and fresh when the charismatic Sanders and Warren say it.

https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1023.msg99130#msg99130

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB 2/index.php?topic=1023.msg16968#msg16968

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Warren needs plan to walk back radical dicey political positions
« Reply #155 on: October 22, 2019, 09:19:20 AM »
Warren had better have a plan — she needs one to win in November
BY ALBERT HUNT, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 10/21/19

[Hunt is NOT a conservative.]

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/466694-warren-had-better-have-a-plan-she-needs-one-to-win-in-november
--------------------------------
In other words, no Democrat can win both the party nomination and the general election without lying to one group or the other.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Warren won't say what Medicare for All will cost because she doesn't know
« Reply #156 on: October 22, 2019, 09:38:34 AM »
Warren won't say what Medicare for All will cost or how she WE will pay for it because she doesn't know.  "Estimates vary by trillions."  Yes they do.

  - It will cost at least two or more times the highest estimate. 

I have been looking into a number of cost situations in health care in the 'micro' level.  Even is I was a Leftist, I would not want to be the President responsible for the federal government takeover of all healthcare.  Talk about blood on your hands, expense and DEBT.  Who balances that budget? 

She is going to propose a tax on just the rich that doesn't raise any new revenue.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Re: Warren's tax plan is asset forfeiture
« Reply #158 on: October 28, 2019, 08:26:54 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-tax-plan-is-asset-forfeiture/?fbclid=IwAR0zs_5lthTy4pmO3NQQkRCo4fXqFbGiWtYPonAtPcGM5lfN1L_u_ZlQ568

Asset forfeiture / confiscation IS socialism, along with the force to make it happen against the people's will.  See Chavez Mduro, Stalin et al.  They all seem so nice until you offer any resistance to their coercion.

In the US, income and wealth taxes were prohibited by the constitution (for good reason).  The Sixteenth Amendment opened up an exception strictly limited to income, not wealth:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Besides unconstitutional, the wealth tax has practicality problems.  How do you take 2% of a farm or a factory every year?  Out of the profits?  No.  That is a profits tax and we already have that.  Absent large profits, you have to forfeit the asset.

They promised it would only be a small percentage levied on only the very rich  for the income tax too.  They lied.

Note that the wealth tax didn't work where it was levied elsewhere, see France.  Warrens advisers have been fully debunked and discredited on these pages.

https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1023.msg106051#msg106051
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1791.msg116703#msg116703
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1023.msg100957#msg100957
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1518.msg84679#msg84679
--------------------
After the adoption of many new taxes, hikes of several existing taxes, and the promise of more tax increases to come, France is suffering from a massive brain drain. According to Jean-Philippe Delsol, now that the richest Frenchmen have left, it’s the turn of young entrepreneurs to take off.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/frances-brain-and-wealth-drain-veronique-de-rugy/

A war on wealth is a war on capital.
A war on capital is a war on productivity .
A war on productivity is a war on workers .
https://freedomandprosperity.org/2019/blog/the-destructive-impact-of-wealth-taxation/

France’s 75% ‘supertax’ reduced government tax revenues through hindered economic growth and capital flight.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2015/02/02/frances-75-supertax-failure-a-blow-to-pikettys-economics/#15a5a7665df2


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, wealth tax continued
« Reply #160 on: October 29, 2019, 06:10:18 AM »
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/elizabeth-warren-has-a-plan-to-tax-wealth-and-its-a-joke

This article reiterates points made in the last couple of days here on the Forum.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Warren's economic advisers blur lines between activism and academics
« Reply #161 on: October 31, 2019, 02:10:01 PM »
https://www.aier.org/article/the-big-fib-about-the-rich-and-taxes/

Their department website at Berkeley boasts that the new tax-simulation “website will play a role in the coming presidential election, and especially the primaries.” It also features favorable portrayals of the Warren campaign’s tax plan, and accompanying editorial content that argues for the adoption of a national wealth tax.

Editorial content of this type would be fine, provided it is acknowledged as such and distinguished from the academic iterations of the underlying data. Yet here again, Saez and Zucman seem to be blurring the lines between their scholarship and political electioneering. This development is especially curious, considering that Zucman himself has responded to several challenges to his data by name-calling and accusing his critics of having political motives.
-----------------------
Like all the inequality alarmism pieces, they neglect the largest tax credits of the poor (EITC for example) in order to make a false conclusion.  Then they include health care premiums as taxes.  That bizarre move is to set up their point of justifying Medicare for all 'without a tax increase'.

The previously published peer reviewed economic research they contradict includes their own.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Warren Opposes School Choice, Sends Own Son To Elite Private School
« Reply #162 on: October 31, 2019, 02:43:33 PM »
Elizabeth Warren Pledges To Crack Down On School Choice, Despite Sending Her Own Son To Elite Private School

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18273
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Warren Pledges To Crack Down On School Choice, Despite Sending Her Own Son To Elite Private School

Well, at least the Obamas sent their kids to the DC public schools!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, It's all paid for by the 'rich'
« Reply #164 on: November 03, 2019, 06:40:57 AM »
Even the NYT says her proposals are far to the Left of Obama's.

Raising tax rates on those most able to rearrange their affairs does not grow the economy or bring in more revenues, much less $20 trillion more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all.html

Elizabeth Warren Proposes $20.5 Trillion Health Care Plan
Ms. Warren would impose huge tax increases on businesses and billionaires to pay for “Medicare for all,” but she said she would not raise taxes on the middle class.

By Thomas Kaplan, Abby Goodnough and Margot Sanger-Katz
Nov. 1, 2019

WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday revealed her plan to pay for an expansive transformation of the nation’s health care system, proposing huge tax increases on businesses and wealthy Americans to help cover $20.5 trillion in new federal spending.

The plan represents a significant bet that enough voters will favor an approach that dismantles the current system and replaces it with “Medicare for all,” a government-run health insurance program. And it comes after decades in which Democrats have largely tiptoed around policy proposals that relied on major tax increases and Republicans ran on tax cuts.

While the proposal allows Ms. Warren to say she is not raising taxes on the middle class, it opened her to renewed charges that her plan is too radical to pass through Congress. It represents an extraordinary embrace of the tax system to redistribute wealth and re-engineer one of the pillars of the American economy, with measures that would double her proposed wealth tax on billionaires and impose new levies on investment gains and even stock trades.

“This debate has moved so far and so fast within the Democratic Party, it makes your head spin,” said Larry Levitt, the executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Ideas that used to be political third rails are now being proposed by one of the leading candidates for president.”

Ms. Warren, of Massachusetts, is not the only Democratic presidential candidate envisioning a large new government program funded by tax increases. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Ms. Warren’s top rival in the party’s progressive wing, is the architect of Medicare for all and has also proposed sweeping changes.

Together they are presenting a profoundly different vision from the one Democrats promoted as recently as the mid-1990s when President Bill Clinton declared in a State of the Union address that “the era of big government is over.” While President Barack Obama pushed through the Affordable Care Act and managed to bring down the number of uninsured, he preserved a major role for the private sector in the country’s health insurance system.

Under Ms. Warren’s plan, private health insurance — which now covers most of the population — would be eliminated and replaced by free government health coverage for all Americans. That is a fundamental shift from a market-driven system that has defined health care in the United States for decades but produced vast inequities in quality, service and cost.

Ms. Warren would pay for the new federal spending, $20.5 trillion over 10 years, through a mix of sources, including:

Requiring employers to pay the government a similar amount to what they are currently spending on their employees’ health care, totaling $8.8 trillion over a decade.

Changing how investment gains are taxed for the top 1 percent of households, raising $2 trillion, and ramping up her signature wealth tax proposal to be steeper on billionaires, raising another $1 trillion.

Creating a tax on financial transactions like stock trades, bringing in $800 billion.

Beyond the $20.5 trillion total, she is also counting on states and local governments to contribute an additional $6.1 trillion to help pay for the system.

Like Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren would essentially eliminate medical costs for individuals, including premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. But it is not clear if her plan would cover the costs of free health care for everyone. It relies on ambitious assumptions about how much it can lower payments to hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies, and how cheaply such a large system could be run.

Several economists have said providing free health care would cost trillions more over a decade.

“We made different assumptions, because we didn’t think these kinds of assumptions were realistic,” said Linda Blumberg, a health economist at the Urban Institute, whose detailed assessment of Medicare for all found it would require $34 trillion in added federal spending.

Under her health plan, Ms. Warren would eliminate private insurance companies and direct the federal government to reimburse doctors and hospitals at roughly the rates paid by Medicare. How would you feel about being paid entirely at Medicare rates?*

As Ms. Warren has risen steadily in the polls, with strong support from liberals excited about her ambitious policy plans, she has been under pressure from top rivals like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to release details about paying for health care. She has been asked over and over whether she would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it, but had not answered directly until now.

Her lack of specificity became a vulnerability as the primary race heated up, especially because she had established herself as the candidate with a plan for everything. Democratic rivals like Mr. Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., who prefer building on the existing system of health coverage, have pointedly criticized her on the issue, with Mr. Buttigieg calling her “extremely evasive.” Two weeks ago, with no sign that the pressure would relent, she announced she would soon release her own financing plan.

“A key step in winning the public debate over Medicare for all will be explaining what this plan costs — and how to pay for it,” Ms. Warren wrote in her plan. To do that, she added, “We don’t need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny.”

[What??]
...

“Candidates often pivot to the center on issues in the general election,” he added. “This proposal will make it more difficult for Warren to do that on health care.”

For Ms. Warren to achieve her desired health care transformation, she would need to persuade Congress to pass far-reaching legislation, an enormous political challenge and a virtual impossibility unless Democrats win control of the Senate.

Mr. Biden’s campaign quickly criticized Ms. Warren’s plan as “unrealistic.”

“The mathematical gymnastics in this plan are all geared towards hiding a simple truth from voters: It’s impossible to pay for Medicare for all without middle-class tax increases,” Kate Bedingfield, a deputy campaign manager for Mr. Biden, said in a statement. In an interview with “PBS NewsHour,” Mr. Biden said of Ms. Warren’s plan, “She’s making it up.”

Speaking to reporters in Des Moines, Ms. Warren rebuffed criticism of her proposal, saying: “Democrats are not going to win by repeating Republican talking points and by dusting off the points of view of the giant insurance companies and the giant drug companies who don’t want to see any change in the law that will bite into their profits.”

She said anyone defending the profits of the insurance and drug companies was “running in the wrong presidential primary.”

The Republican National Committee described Ms. Warren’s plan as a “fairy tale,” adding that it would have the effect of “bankrupting the country and hurting the quality of care.”

The comments sent a signal of how President Trump and Republicans would portray her: as a tax-and-spend liberal who wants to vastly expand the role of the federal government while abolishing private health insurance. Her plan’s price tag is equal to roughly one-third of what the federal government is currently projected to spend over the next decade in total.

Still, the idea of government-run health insurance excites many liberal voters. Mr. Sanders has long championed single-payer health care, and Ms. Warren has aligned herself with him on the issue.

A New York Times/Siena College poll released Friday found that about three-quarters of likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa supported creating a single-payer system, while about nine in 10 supported the creation of an optional government plan that any American could buy.

Asked whether they would be likelier to support a candidate who promises to replace the existing health care system with Medicare for all or a candidate who promises to improve the current system, likely caucusgoers said by a 14-point margin that they preferred the second option.

Ms. Warren’s proposal shows just how large a reorganization of spending Medicare for all represents. By eliminating private health insurance and bringing every American into a federal system, trillions of dollars of spending by households, employers and state governments would be transferred into the federal budget over the course of a decade.

Ms. Warren tries to minimize fiscal disruption by asking the big payers in the current system to keep paying. Her tax on employers is meant to replace the amount that companies now pay directly to health insurers. (Small businesses would be exempt if they are not currently paying for their employees’ health care.) She has also proposed that states pay the federal government what they currently spend to cover state workers and low-income residents under the Medicaid program.  [Authorized by Article WHAT of the constitution?]

But to help replace an estimated $11 trillion in health care spending that would be borne by American households over a decade — on premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs — Ms. Warren lays out a series of new taxes on corporations and wealthy people.

She would raise $3 trillion in total from two proposals to tax the richest Americans. She has previously said that her wealth tax proposal would impose a 3 percent annual tax on net worth over $1 billion; she would now raise that to 6 percent. For the top 1 percent of households, she would tax investment gains annually instead of when the investments are sold.

Ms. Warren is also counting on stronger tax enforcement to bring in more than $2 trillion in taxes that would otherwise go uncollected, as well as $800 billion in cuts to military spending. And she is banking on passing an overhaul of immigration laws — which itself would be a huge political feat — and gaining revenue from additional taxes paid by immigrants.

Ms. Warren’s plan would put substantial downward pressure on payments to hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies. She expects that an aggressive negotiation system could lower spending on generic medications by 30 percent compared with what Medicare pays now, for example, and spending on brand-name prescription drugs could fall by 70 percent.

Payments to hospitals would be 10 percent higher on average than what Medicare pays now, a rate that would make some hospitals whole but would lead to big reductions for others. She would reduce doctors’ pay to the prices Medicare pays now, with additional reductions for specialists, and small increases to doctors who provide primary care.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Warren Pay for it plan, SNL
« Reply #165 on: November 03, 2019, 12:49:55 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52090
    • View Profile
WSJ on "Forked Tongue" Warren's Health Care Proposal
« Reply #166 on: November 04, 2019, 11:32:47 AM »
Warren Has a (Fantasy) Plan
Her financing and savings ideas for Medicare for All bear no relation to reality.
By The Editorial Board
Nov. 3, 2019 6:16 pm ET

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren November 02, 2019 in Dubuque, Iowa. PHOTO: SCOTT OLSON/GETTY IMAGES
Now we know why Elizabeth Warren took so long to release the financing details of her Medicare-for-All plan. The 20 pages of explanation she released Friday reveal that she is counting on ideas for cost-savings and new revenue that are a fiscal and health-care fantasy.

The House Finally Goes on Record on an Impeachment Inquiry


SUBSCRIBE
You certainly can’t criticize the new Iowa Democratic caucus front-runner for lack of ambition. Despite criticism from fellow Democrats, she is sticking to her plan for a government takeover of American health care, including the elimination of private insurance that 170 million or so Americans now have. She continues to claim that this will cost “not one penny in middle-class tax increases.” She walks on water too.

***
Start with the overall fiscal math, which by itself is staggering. She concedes that her plan will cost only “slightly” less than the $52 trillion that the U.S. is expected to spend on health care in the next 10 years. She deducts from that what the feds now spend on Medicare and Medicaid, plus $6 trillion that the states contribute to Medicaid, the state-federal children’s health program and government worker benefits.

That leaves $30 trillion to finance, but Senator Warren waves her wand and says the bill will really be $20.5 trillion. She makes the rest vanish by positing magical savings from things like “comprehensive payment reform.” One of her ideas is the hardy perennial known as “bundled payments,” which have failed to reduce costs as promised by Obama Care.

She says hospitals would be reimbursed at an average of 110% of current Medicare rates, which is supposed to address the criticism that Medicare currently under-compensates patient care. But hospitals now rely on private insurance payments to stay in business, and 110% of what Medicare now pays will hardly be enough to compensate for the loss of that private money.

Amusingly, she also proposes savings from “restoring health care competition.” Because everyone will have good insurance, she says, “providers will have to compete on better care and reduced wait times in order to attract more patients.” But if government is controlling all prices and reimbursements, what incentive is there to compete at all?

There’s a reason every government-run health system in the world rations care. Ms. Warren won’t admit this explicitly about her brave new health world, but she comes close. If U.S. health-care spending exceeds GDP growth, she says, “I will use available policy tools, which include global budgets, population-based budgets, and automatic rate reductions, to bring it back into line.”

In a word, rationing. And that’s no surprise, since she credits the advice for developing much of her plan to Donald Berwick. He was an advocate for ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board—known uncharitably as the death panel—that Congress repealed last year in a bipartisan vote.

Ms. Warren would also impose foreign price controls on U.S. drug makers, which is why patients in France and the U.K. have access to only about half of new medicines that are available in the U.S. Manufacturers that don’t agree to Ms. Warren’s price negotiation would get whacked with a hefty excise tax on their profits. She also threatens to confiscate their patents.

The details of how she’d pay for the other $20.5 trillion are even more fantastical. Start with her “Employer Medicare Contribution.” Instead of paying employee health-care premiums, businesses would cut a check to Uncle Sam to the tune of $8.8 trillion over 10 years based on what they pay now.

She says per-employee health costs for every employer would remain about the same, but payroll costs of this sort are essentially middle-class taxes on employees. Fixing per-employee business costs at some future date would also be an incentive for companies to reduce their coverage now to reduce future costs. So employees would get worse coverage than they have now. If this “employer contribution” raises less money than projected, her fall-back is to whack “big companies with extremely high executive compensation and stock buyback rates.”

Meantime, she’d also raise the corporate tax rate back to 35% from 21% and extend it to income earned worldwide with no deferrals for foreign taxes. She claims this would generate $1.75 trillion over 10 years, which is fanciful since it would be an immediate incentive for companies to relocate overseas.

She also doubles down on her plans to soak the rich, assuming there are any left after her other tax proposals. She wants a new annual tax on unrealized capital gains of the wealthiest 1% of households (raising $2 trillion over 10 years), which would mean you owe a tax even if you haven’t sold the asset. She graciously says taxpayers could offset the gains with losses in bad years, but that would lead to extreme revenue fluctuations from year to year.

Ms. Warren has already proposed a 2% wealth tax on assets of more than $50 million, which is supposed to pay for her education, child-care and college-debt forgiveness plans. She now wants to add a 6% annual tax on Americans with more than $1 billion in assets that she says would raise $3 trillion. Most economists, including Democrat Larry Summers, believe a wealth tax would raise far less due to tax avoidance, which is why so many European countries have repealed their wealth taxes.

But, no worries, Ms. Warren would hire a new army of tax collectors to close what she calls the 15% “tax gap” between what people owe and what they pay. The Senator says this will be worth $2.3 trillion in additional revenue. This is another old Congressional standby that never yields what is predicted.

Oh, and she’d save $800 billion by cutting defense spending for Overseas Contingency Operations. Senator Warren calls this a “slush fund,” but it’s really the account to finance current overseas operations as well as readiness. This would return to the Obama years of slashing defense even as global threats from regional powers and new technology are increasing. This is a hyper-fantasy.

***
The political vulnerability of all this isn’t lost on Ms. Warren’s Democratic competitors. A spokeswoman for Joe Biden said Saturday that Ms. Warren is “lowballing the cost of her plan by well over $10 trillion” and isn’t telling the truth about her taxes “that would come out of workers’ pockets.” The likeliest outcome, if her plan ever became law, would be a value-added consumption tax on the middle class.

Ms. Warren is trying to sell an illusion and make it sound like political courage. Donald Trump’s boast that Mexico would pay for the wall was more believable.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Warren destroys 'constituent group HENRY', MEGAN MCARDLE
« Reply #167 on: November 04, 2019, 04:35:28 PM »
We used to talk about DINK, Dual income, no kids.

Now we have HENRY, High Earner, Not Yet Rich.



Also:  https://www.clintonherald.com/on-health-care-warren-sounded-like-a-student-who-hadn/article_eb668490-f1c5-11e9-bd8e-c3179ab2abd7.html
On health care, Warren sounded like a student who hadn't done her reading
By MEGAN MCARDLE Oct 18, 2019

Q:  "You have not specified (2 weeks ago) how you’re going to pay for the most expensive plan, Medicare-for-all. Will you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it, yes or no?”

Warren  answer:  The former professor sounded like a freshman who hadn’t done the reading. Warren ambled between heart-tugging anecdote and amiably unobjectionable generalities — “Look, the way I see this, it is hard enough to get a diagnosis ... what you shouldn’t have to worry about is how you’re going to pay for your health care after that.” She didn’t attempt to answer the question, except to insist that the only people who will pay for her new plan are the rich and big corporations. As real wonks know, that math doesn’t work.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Warren’s Medicare For All
« Reply #168 on: November 07, 2019, 08:54:32 AM »
Warren’s Medicare For All: Longest Political Suicide Note In Recorded History

https://lidblog.com/medicare-for-all/
-------------------------------------
Plans by Warren and Sanders Neglect Logic, Math and Honesty
Veronique  de RugyVeronique de Rugy|Posted: Nov 07, 2019
https://townhall.com/columnists/veroniquederugy/2019/11/07/plans-by-warren-and-sanders-neglect-logic-math-and-honesty-n2556034
« Last Edit: November 07, 2019, 08:57:27 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11017
    • View Profile
Hillary ? Boomer ?
« Reply #169 on: November 07, 2019, 09:11:24 AM »
Warren's Medicare for all:   Longest Political Suicide Note In Recorded History

yes and even many on the Left are running scared of this.
maybe nominee won't be her after all as I thought 2 weeks ago.......

My best guess now is it will be the Hillary monster after all out of desperation

or maybe Boomer the Democrat, later the Republican , later the Independent, now back to being the obvious Democrat he always has been....

And while thee LEft scours around  looking for their savior  the imperial Democrat Guard (MSM) keeps up the daily minute to minute verbal nuclear attacks of the Orange Man and his followers.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Warren's dishonesty is cruel
« Reply #170 on: November 08, 2019, 07:40:20 AM »
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/elizabeth-warrens-cruelty

"... This is all a cruel lie to those people who will lose their private insurance, pay more in taxes, and find it harder to get seen by a doctor."
...
"Washington can cure what ails you simply by taking from others. It isn't true. Never has been. Never will be."
-------------------
PLEASE read it all.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Oddly, it isn't the wealthy that are hurt by a wealth tax
« Reply #172 on: November 13, 2019, 06:33:36 AM »
https://www.wsj.com/articles/warrens-2-cents-come-at-your-expense-11573515899

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/12/why-a-warren-presidency-would-jeopardize-retirement-funds/

Your retirement plunges while "they" remain wealthy.  Your jobs, your wages, your growth, your opportunities plunge while "they" remain wealthy.

It is an interconnected economy.  Economics 101

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Warren, Her only contribution to academics was (also) a Lie
« Reply #173 on: November 25, 2019, 08:28:13 AM »
Warren claim to national fame was her bankruptcy work that tied medical expenses to more than half of bankruptcies:  "Harvard Study: Half of U.S. Bankruptcies Caused by Medical Bills".  This scholarly work linked below is entitled "Misdiagnosis" was published in 2006 in the 'Texas Review of Law and Politics'.  It systematically rips Warren's assertion to shreds:

Reprint at: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/lie-a-watha.php
...
"For example, the authors (Warren) state that their study classified bankruptcies in which the debtor cited “uncontrolled gambling,” “alcohol or drug addiction,” “death in family,” and as having a“medical cause”"
...
Author Gail L. Heriot is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, former member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52090
    • View Profile
Good find.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Re: Lizzy "Forked Tongue" Warren isn't good enough
« Reply #176 on: November 26, 2019, 03:25:54 PM »
https://patriotpost.us/articles/67001-warrens-phony-bio-continued-2019-11-26?mailing_id=4691&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4691&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body

Worse than error by omission when you watch the video:

Black lady parent volunteer says: "We read that your kid went to private school."  0:06 on the video.

Warren interrupts instantly to correct her.  By 0:07 on the video she has finished saying:
"My children went to public schools."

Yes they did, partly, but that doesn't make what the nice lady said wrong.  YOUR KID WENT TO PRIVATE SCHOOL, like it or not.  There is no way to read this other than Warren is telling the woman who is exactly right that she is wrong.

Patriot Post:  "Warren, like most Democrats, opposes school choice because she’s backed by teachers’ unions. But Warren also wants blacks to vote for her, and school choice is popular among the black community because it is their kids who suffer most in failing urban schools."

CHOOSE ONE:  Teachers unions support or support from people who pressing for school choice for their children and their neighborhoods.

There is something worse than dishonesty going on here.  Warren is admitting that the truth is not good enough to make her case.  That's why she lies.

The tie between medical bills and bankruptcy is not good enough to make her case - so she exaggerates it.  White lady from Oklahoma, former Republican, is not good enough in her world of identity politics - so she passes along her false, native heritage story.  Bouncing around in jobs while trying to figure out what she wants to do isn't good enough of a life story to tell - so she pretends she was a victimized woman in employment.  Big School against a little, powerless, pregnant woman.  So few women ever make in Elementary teaching?  Good grief.  Get a life - and leave us out of it.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2019, 03:36:05 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18273
    • View Profile
Re: Lizzy "Forked Tongue" Warren isn't good enough
« Reply #177 on: November 26, 2019, 04:44:21 PM »
Warren's first instinct is to lie. It's gotten her this far.


https://patriotpost.us/articles/67001-warrens-phony-bio-continued-2019-11-26?mailing_id=4691&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4691&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body

Worse than error by omission when you watch the video:

Black lady parent volunteer says: "We read that your kid went to private school."  0:06 on the video.

Warren interrupts instantly to correct her.  By 0:07 on the video she has finished saying:
"My children went to public schools."

Yes they did, partly, but that doesn't make what the nice lady said wrong.  YOUR KID WENT TO PRIVATE SCHOOL, like it or not.  There is no way to read this other than Warren is telling the woman who is exactly right that she is wrong.

Patriot Post:  "Warren, like most Democrats, opposes school choice because she’s backed by teachers’ unions. But Warren also wants blacks to vote for her, and school choice is popular among the black community because it is their kids who suffer most in failing urban schools."

CHOOSE ONE:  Teachers unions support or support from people who pressing for school choice for their children and their neighborhoods.

There is something worse than dishonesty going on here.  Warren is admitting that the truth is not good enough to make her case.  That's why she lies.

The tie between medical bills and bankruptcy is not good enough to make her case - so she exaggerates it.  White lady from Oklahoma, former Republican, is not good enough in her world of identity politics - so she passes along her false, native heritage story.  Bouncing around in jobs while trying to figure out what she wants to do isn't good enough of a life story to tell - so she pretends she was a victimized woman in employment.  Big School against a little, powerless, pregnant woman.  So few women ever make in Elementary teaching?  Good grief.  Get a life - and leave us out of it.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Warren, Clinton Collusion 2016
« Reply #178 on: December 21, 2019, 06:37:07 PM »
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/19/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-economy-087346c

If this were two companies colluding, it would be highly illegal.  Sounds also a bit like extortion.  Not just one politician helping another.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
“The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women: Amy and me,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said during the Democratic debate in Des Moines on Tuesday.

[Besides that she is a Democrat who barely won in a heavily Democratic state: Every elected president of the last half-century [except Trump?] has been a loser. From Richard Nixon to Barack Obama, all of those professional politicians lost a political campaign before making it to the White House. Nixon and Ronald Reagan lost big promising bids for the presidency itself.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/477685-the-test-elizabeth-warren-needs

Had to look up this one:
Georgia Democratic primary results 1966
Candidate        Votes        %
Ellis Arnall        231,480  29.38
Lester Maddox  185,672  23.56
Jimmy Carter   164,562  20.89

Paraphrase of anti-fragile, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.  Warren's setbacks were to be caught up in lies.  What did she learn from that, to stop lying?  Not when she still denies all her lies. 


« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 07:33:50 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 08:35:23 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52090
    • View Profile
WSJ: Lizzy Forked Tongue threatens to go after scalps of Team Trump
« Reply #181 on: January 23, 2020, 06:42:51 AM »
Think the fog of partisan Trump investigations will lift once the President leaves office, either in 2021 or 2025? Not if Elizabeth Warren has anything to say about it. With the Iowa caucuses approaching and her campaign fortunes flagging, Senator Warren now says that as President she’d launch an open-ended criminal investigation into her predecessor and anyone who worked for him.

Ms. Warren’s latest “anti-corruption” plan says she would create “a Justice Department Task Force to investigate corruption during the Trump administration and to hold government officials accountable for illegal activity.” She would order Justice to look for violations of “federal bribery laws, insider trading laws, and other anti-corruption and public integrity laws” as well as immigration-enforcement offenses.

Day One of the Impeachment Trial, and Joe Biden in Iowa


SUBSCRIBE
“This will be no ordinary transition between administrations,” the document says ominously. Team Warren won’t be satisfied with taking control of the executive branch in an election. They also want scalps of choice ex-officials. The plan links to news articles about Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, White House Adviser KellyanneCon way and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson.

If there is evidence of a crime by a former Administration official, it should be investigated through the normal channels. Ms. Warren is proposing something different: A law-enforcement task force dedicated to searching for wrongdoing only by political opponents. This would be familiar in Latin American dictatorships where the party that loses an election may be jailed as retribution.

Pundits said Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign threat to investigate Hillary Clinton for her email mismanagement was a chilling breach of democratic norms. We opposed such an investigation but at least the alleged misconduct was limited to specific conduct by one official, whereas Ms. Warren wants investigations of all Republican officials for any political offenses.

Despite all the apocalyptic think-pieces and high-minded books, America has not become an “autocracy” three years into Donald Trump’s Presidency. The opposition party won the House in the midterms, proceeded to impeach the President, and its leading candidates are ahead in the head-to-head 2020 presidential election polls.

Yet in polarized times the temptation to criminalize political differences is stronger than ever. It will be especially strong for Democrats once they are back in control of the Justice Department. Down Senator Warren’s road lies a real threat to liberty.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Re: Dad who paid for daughter's education confronts Warren
« Reply #183 on: January 24, 2020, 04:04:27 AM »
https://www.theblaze.com/news/dad-who-paid-for-daughters-education-confronts-warren-over-student-loan-forgiveness?utm_content=bufferd79e4&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=fb-theblaze

*it rewards people who were financially irresponsible, and it punishes those who avoided racking up overwhelming student loan debt.*

I am afraid he was at the wrong party's event.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52090
    • View Profile



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12968
    • View Profile
Warren, Lie and pander, but not well enough for discerning Dems
« Reply #187 on: March 06, 2020, 05:51:06 AM »
Warren will lose bigly.

With Democratic lying and pandering, it's hard to know how much is too much.  Better to be a buffoon in this case than a cold, calculating liar.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/elizabeth-warrens-pandering-and-dishonesty-brought-her-campaign-to-an-end

One good point in the article, she is the one who took down Bloomberg.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2020, 06:08:50 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18273
    • View Profile
Re: Warren, Lie and pander, but not well enough for discerning Dems
« Reply #188 on: March 06, 2020, 05:35:51 PM »
Who knew the democrats voting base was so deeply anti-woman? Racist towards Native Americans as well!


Warren will lose bigly.

With Democratic lying and pandering, it's hard to know how much is too much.  Better to be a buffoon in this case than a cold, calculating liar.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/elizabeth-warrens-pandering-and-dishonesty-brought-her-campaign-to-an-end

One good point in the article, she is the one who took down Bloomberg.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18273
    • View Profile