warren has spent quite a lot of her career working on economics and policy.
Politics: 2020 Dem POTUS candidate catch all discussion thread
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
- Status
Reminds me of all the internet coaches on the football board that explain aspects of the game they wished Saban understood.
her long and successful record of academic and policy work suggest otherwise. regardless, she persists
Last edited:
Lots of lightweights have long academic careers. This should not be a surprise. Her tax policy fails sanity checks in math and human nature. People are not going to react in the static manner she assumes. She persists in bad policy, sadly.
As I said earlier, I'm looking for a Democrat to vote for in this election. But, I am turned off by policy that panders to the jealous and ignorant. Maybe she'll chart a policy course that makes sense should she be the nominee. Whoever wins the nomination, I hope he/she does. The country needs it.
why would you think she's a lightweight? independent of your agreement with her, her academic and professional careers were not only lengthy, they are also quite distinguished.
Because, as I said above, her policies are fundamentally unsound. She's pedaling snake oil as nearly every politician does. So, I view her as I do nearly every politician. I wish this wasn't the case.
i think that within our current political climate some of her proposals as they stand are not possible to pass, but i think they do move us in the right direction. i did find this analysis (from a week or so back) on her tax proposals (wealth tax, treating capital gains as income above a certain level, etc)
[pdf link]
link
[pdf link]
link
Last edited:
Any time I see someone put out a proposal that forecasts results 10 years down the road, I take it with a grain of salt. People respond to (dis)incentives and change their behavior. I do; everyone who pays attention does. To do a forecast requires a lot of assumptions .... that turn out being wrong. For an analogy, when New Jersey raised income taxes again in 2016, David Tepper and many others left the state. NJ raised taxes to increase revenue; they ended up losing so much (hundreds of millions of dollars) it caused a fiscal crisis. Static analyses are almost always wrong.
yes, they do mention that at the end of their piece
in my previous job, i did a lot of population modeling for counties and regions and always had to explain the grain of salt stuff. i do think that the dynamic of moving to a different state vs leaving the u.s. based on taxes will be slightly different. but like with my thoughts on m4a, i think that tweaks to our existing system (e.g. increasing marginal rates for the highest bracket
Yeah, I find statistic modeling to be useless for all practicality on something so large and with a long time horizon. It's similar to virtually any Congressional Budget Office report. They take the assumptions given by the politician and run the numbers. And presto, the politician gets their plan validated for mass consumption. But, after a couple of years, such projections are about as accurate as throwing darts (by an amateur, not a world champion). But, by then, the gross inaccuracy is just brushed under the rug, as it occurs after an election or a bills passage. And the public's attention is focused on chasing the next squirrel.
modeling can give you a good idea of the parameters within which you want to undertake longterm planning/policy, but as it moves from analysis to decision maker it often changes from parameters with conditions to super magic crystal ball.
Regarding Warren's desire to spend an extra $20 trillion, I would prefer she (and all others) refrain from raising taxes when there is so much waste and spending from federal constitutional overreach that could be redirected. One could probably easily come up with more than $1 trillion/year if one was serious about good government. Sadly, I'm not aware of any of the candidates taking such an approach.
I doubt many people outside the Northeast know who he is. I like his resume better than most, but he doesn't have a prayer of getting the nomination.
If he wasn’t black, I doubt I would be familiar with him. (Black governors are rare, so they make headlines just for being elected). I really don’t know anything about him or his politics.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've spent some time looking into Warren's background and found it very interesting. I did not know she got divorced from Mr. Warren and later remarried, but kept her first husband's surname.
In a very simplistic summary, she doesn't approach economics with an attitude of how to concentrate more wealth into fewer people's hands. She thinks the playing field needs leveling to to the advantage of more people from more modest means.
OMG Socialism!
Pocahontas!
Snake oil saleswoman!
I'd vote for her in a New York minute over any Republican, and that goes double for Trump.
In a very simplistic summary, she doesn't approach economics with an attitude of how to concentrate more wealth into fewer people's hands. She thinks the playing field needs leveling to to the advantage of more people from more modest means.
OMG Socialism!
Pocahontas!
Snake oil saleswoman!
I'd vote for her in a New York minute over any Republican, and that goes double for Trump.
In addition, the impetus for her running for the Senate was her opposition to the Bankruptcy bill championed by Biden, which gave so many protections to banks and credit card companies that they didn't have to care if someone was a risk or not.
I've said it before--she's more liberal than I would prefer, but she's got a better understanding of the system than the other candidates.
Why would you want the government playing favorites? Don't we have enough of that garbage already? How much more of the economy do you want to cede to the influence of lobbyists?
What does "leveling the playing field mean"? I know what it means in political sloganeering terms and how much it appeals to those with a strong jealous streak. But, what does it mean in real policy terms? Anything more sophisticated than a "robbing Peter to pay Paul" scheme? Why would an able-bodied adult need this kind of governmental interference in their lives?
As was demonstrated earlier, Warren's (and anyone's) 10-year static analysis is bogus. A year or two out the accuracy is about 50%, and by year two or three the accuracy approaches zero. Anyone who promotes it as anything worthwhile is pedaling snake oil. If you don't wish to see it that way, congratulations on being the target market for snake oil salesmen.
So, I'll mark you down for the Donkey Tribe then?
I vote Dem not because I'm crazy about everything they work towards, I vote against the GOP. The Dem candidate has always been "the least dirty shirt" in my opinion.
Last edited:
- Status
Latest threads
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 7
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
