The latest Quinnipeac has them neck and neckThe latest Monmouth poll has Biden, Warren and Sanders neck-and-neck

Biden is dropping like a rock.

(Edit: oops, I see Quirt beat me to it. )

He's not polling at the top of the pack but Mayor Pete sure is hauling in the cash, even beating Harris for fund raising in California. And he was at the top of the pack overall for fundraising last quarter.

quote:

One of the other leading Democratic presidential contenders, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), is a “favorite daughter” who should be far out ahead in contribution totals. Leading California donors have strongly supported her previous successful campaigns for state attorney general and the U.S. Senate. As a detail-driven prosecutor who also is an Asian-African-American woman, she checks the boxes for both head and heart, both Silicon Valley and the big studio boardrooms.

But Buttigieg came on strong in the spring and has not let up. In the second quarter of this year, he topped all candidates in nationwide fundraising, bringing in close to $25 million. A sizable share came from California: Harris raised $3.18 million here, but Buttigieg took in $3.75 million — more than half of that from big-money sources in Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

https://thehill.com/opinion/ca...he-edge-to-buttigieg

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Bernie is promising some $50T (T as in to trillion) in new benefits without a single idea to who is going to pay.

This is debatable.

I'd love to see a breakdown of how that $50T is calculated, from a reputable source.

Can you think of a reputable source?

Frankly, the assertion that Sanders proposes 50T with no way to pay for it seems false to me.

It would probably have to be calculated 75 years in the future, or something.

I think I'd rather watch paint dry.

quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Warren wants Wilbur Ross to take over both Apple and Microsoft.

Not so.

Surely she wouldn’t describe it that way, but it is what she proposed. As an actual senate bill, not just a policy piece on Medium.

http://well-temperedforum.grou...433/m/5391013266/p/1

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Bernie is promising some $50T (T as in to trillion) in new benefits without a single idea to who is going to pay.

This is debatable.

I'd love to see a breakdown of how that $50T is calculated, from a reputable source.

Can you think of a reputable source?

Frankly, the assertion that Sanders proposes 50T with no way to pay for it seems false to me.

It would probably have to be calculated 75 years in the future, or something.

I think I'd rather watch paint dry.

It seems false to me, too, at a gut level. But I'm willing to listen to sources.

If Mike Allen or Maggie Haberman, as examples but not the only examples, said it was true, I'd believe them.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Warren wants Wilbur Ross to take over both Apple and Microsoft.

Not so.

Surely she wouldn’t describe it that way, but it is what she proposed. As an actual senate bill, not just a policy piece on Medium.

http://well-temperedforum.grou...433/m/5391013266/p/1

There are three pieces here.

The first is that large corporations should be chartered by the federal government. This is not a radical idea. It would provide uniformity and prevent the race to the bottom where Delaware has lax corporate governance standards and everyone charters in Delaware.

The second is that corporations should serve the public interest. This isn't radical either. The Business Roundtable just announced a very similar position.

And then the third is where you have issues. With who decides whether they are meeting the public interest.

Please name for me all the bills like this that went through Congress without any revision. A list will suffice. (It'd be a very small list, if you can even come up with examples.) It's red meat to the base, but it'd be modified. Plus, the current Supreme Court would never allow an agency untrammeled discretion to do whatever they wanted on something like this, so there'd necessarily be meat added to the bones, to survive judicial scrutiny.

And then there are the other provisions. Executive compensation. Political spending needing to be approved by 75% of the shareholders.

In short, once we get past your reflexive dislike of anything coming out of Elizabeth Warren's camp, there's a lot of good stuff in here. It would undoubtedly be modified and probably weakened in Congress, but it's well thought-out and a decent response to the Citizens United problem.

It's not a bad starting point, and it's not bad just because Warren proposed it.

Your standard response to my criticisms of Warren amount to ‘the stupid sh1t she proposes will never make it through the legislative/judicial review process’.

That’s true as far as it goes, but of little consolation. We should expect better than that.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
In short, once we get past your reflexive dislike of anything coming out of Elizabeth Warren's camp...

This is really weak since I’m always quite specific about what I don’t like about her plans and often you even agree with my specific complaints.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Your standard response to my criticisms of Warren amount to ‘the stupid sh1t she proposes will never make it through the legislative/judicial review process’.

That’s true as far as it goes, but of little consolation. We should expect better than that.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?

I was quite positive and many of the aspects of the proposal, some of which you had ignored in your original post. So, the most likely alternatives seem to be these: either you ignored them in your original post because you were unaware; or you ignored them because you thought they were immaterial; or you ignored them because you thought they were neutral; or you ignored them because you liked them, and didn't want to say anything positive about the proposal, for whatever reason.

Is it one of those, or is it something else?

Shall we start with her partial fix for Citizens United? Or perhaps the executive compensation part?

You reject everything she says as anti-capitalist and nonsense, and don't give credit for anything good. You don't even admit that some of the things she says have a reasonable basis (making large corporations register at the federal level, for example), even if you might not like them.

As I said a few days ago, your criticisms of Warren used to have an influence on my thinking. Not as much any more, because I am persuaded that they reflect a predisposition.

Here is the list I saw. I don't know the person who wrote it. Some of the proposals are indeed multi-year, but rooting around to find backup for the list shows it to be pretty close. Even if it's off by half it's not something I want to sign up for.

$16T Climate change
$32T Healthcare
$1.6T Student Debt
$807B Free college
$270B Family medical leave
$177B Social Security Benefits

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Here is the list I saw. I don't know the person who wrote it. Some of the proposals are indeed multi-year, but rooting around to find backup for the list shows it to be pretty close. Even if it's off by half it's not something I want to sign up for.

$16T Climate change
$32T Healthcare
$1.6T Student Debt
$807B Free college
$270B Family medical leave
$177B Social Security Benefits

Could you be specific about which ones you disagree with?

If you knock out health care, you're down by almost 2/3 before you even start.

Do you object to her proposal on social security benefits? On family medical leave?

And do you like or dislike her health care proposal on a basis other than cost?

What about climate change? That's almost another 1/3. Do you like or dislike that, cost aside?

Aside from those two items, everything else costs around $3T. And that's just using the numbers you just gave me.

As we've discussed at other times in other threads, I don't like her free college and student debt proposals. But I'm not going to like every proposal from every candidate. Or is there a candidate with whom you agree 100%?

Beats the hell out of what weve spent on war and corporate tax breaks.

"They did it first" is not a reasonable argument.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Here is the list I saw. I don't know the person who wrote it. Some of the proposals are indeed multi-year, but rooting around to find backup for the list shows it to be pretty close. Even if it's off by half it's not something I want to sign up for.

$16T Climate change
$32T Healthcare
$1.6T Student Debt
$807B Free college
$270B Family medical leave
$177B Social Security Benefits

Could you be specific about which ones you disagree with?

These are Bernie ideas, not necessarily Liz ideas. Liz ideas usually come with a financing component so good for her.

quote:

If you knock out health care, you're down by almost 2/3 before you even start.

Why would I do that?

quote:

Do you object to her proposal on social security benefits?

Again, these are Bernie ideas. I’m not sure Bernie finances his plan but Liz proposes a somewhat Byzantine system of eliminating some caps and not others. I prefer removing the cap entirely and raising benefit rates - something that hasn’t been done in a long time.

quote:

On family medical leave?

I would have to learn the details on this one. Most of these plans put responsibility for the employee on the employer even when the employee can not work. That’s not fair.

quote:

And do you like or dislike her health care proposal on a basis other than cost?

Other than cost? How can you have a discussion on this without discussing cost? I will say I am more in favor of an incremental approach involving expansion of Medicare. Dumping a couple of $Tril in to the existing system sounds like a terrible idea.

quote:

What about climate change? That's almost another 1/3. Do you like or dislike that, cost aside

“Cost aside” is a non starter with me. There are a thousand things to be done and a limited amount of money. I can’t see a lot of voters going for this level of fiscal irresponsibility and I hope Bernie goes away very soon.

quote:

Originally posted by Quirt Evans:
Please name for me all the bills like this that went through Congress without any revision.

Expecting Congress to bail us out of situations involving a bad president doesn’t look like a very good plan any more.