Yeah. That's what we need. Just 1 more candidate to share the spotlight.
I loathe Bloomberg. Please just go away.
Why do you hate him? Is it the gun control issue?
Yes and he was a terrible mayor imo. We need another guy in his late 70's running? And yet another billionaire that has no clue what real life is like for the majority of america.
Which candidate knows what life is like for a majority of Americans?
Bloomberg knows you don’t need ID for groceries?
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Yeah. That's what we need. Just 1 more candidate to share the spotlight.
I loathe Bloomberg. Please just go away.
Why do you hate him? Is it the gun control issue?
Yes and he was a terrible mayor imo. We need another guy in his late 70's running? And yet another billionaire that has no clue what real life is like for the majority of america.
Which candidate knows what life is like for a majority of Americans?
Bloomberg knows you don’t need ID for groceries?
I know.. that's funny. But I guess my point is, none of these candidates ever know what it's like for true working Americans. So let's not kid ourselves. Regarding Bloomberg personally, I like that he's business friendly and socially liberal. That's right up my alley. I don't have a strong personal opinion of him, but I don't live in metro NYC either. He's not going to do the early states. It looks like he's waiting to see how much traction Warren truly gets, and then may decide to parachute in. He certainly has the money and political apparatus to do such a thing. He also has extensive ties to mayors across the country. You can't underestimate the power of those relationships.
In the daily podcast they talked about how voters in these swing states take issue with the possibility of a woman president.
There’s just something about her that I just don’t like,” she said. “I just don’t feel like she’s a genuine candidate. I find her body language to be very off-putting. She’s very cold. She’s basically a Hillary Clinton clone.”
As for female presidential candidates in general, she said, “They’re super unlikable.”
Troubling indeed. I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that deep-seated sexism would be a problem for Warren, and it makes me so mad I don't even what to address it.
All the candidates have their issues with likability or electability. Biden’s ageism, homophobia against Pete ect. She ain’t out of it yet and is polling well against Trump in other polls.
Okay. I'm specifically upset about the sexism.
From the story..
At the same time, 41 percent of the voters who support Mr. Biden but not Ms. Warren say they agree with the statement that most of the women who run for president “just aren’t that likable,” likely bolstering concerns among some Democrats that sexism could be a burden on her candidacy.
What's sad is if you look at the crosstabs, Warren's sexism problem includes women voters. They appear to be almost as likely to dislike her for being a woman as a man.
Yeah. That's what we need. Just 1 more candidate to share the spotlight.
I loathe Bloomberg. Please just go away.
Why do you hate him? Is it the gun control issue?
Yes and he was a terrible mayor imo. We need another guy in his late 70's running? And yet another billionaire that has no clue what real life is like for the majority of america.
Which candidate knows what life is like for a majority of Americans?
Bloomberg knows you don’t need ID for groceries?
I know.. that's funny. But I guess my point is, none of these candidates ever know what it's like for true working Americans. So let's not kid ourselves. Regarding Bloomberg personally, I like that he's business friendly and socially liberal. That's right up my alley. I don't have a strong personal opinion of him, but I don't live in metro NYC either. He's not going to do the early states. It looks like he's waiting to see how much traction Warren truly gets, and then may decide to parachute in. He certainly has the money and political apparatus to do such a thing. He also has extensive ties to mayors across the country. You can't underestimate the power of those relationships.
Yeah, IDK. Kinda my feelings, really. Seems like a reasonable human being, maybe a touch elitist. I think he ran window air conditioners in is huge Suburbans when he was mayor because it was against law to keep cars running, lol. If you’re the Biden campaign, bet you don’t like someone messing with you’re southern strategy.
Post edited by Hi! on
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
In the daily podcast they talked about how voters in these swing states take issue with the possibility of a woman president.
There’s just something about her that I just don’t like,” she said. “I just don’t feel like she’s a genuine candidate. I find her body language to be very off-putting. She’s very cold. She’s basically a Hillary Clinton clone.”
As for female presidential candidates in general, she said, “They’re super unlikable.”
Troubling indeed. I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that deep-seated sexism would be a problem for Warren, and it makes me so mad I don't even what to address it.
All the candidates have their issues with likability or electability. Biden’s ageism, homophobia against Pete ect. She ain’t out of it yet and is polling well against Trump in other polls.
Okay. I'm specifically upset about the sexism.
From the story..
At the same time, 41 percent of the voters who support Mr. Biden but not Ms. Warren say they agree with the statement that most of the women who run for president “just aren’t that likable,” likely bolstering concerns among some Democrats that sexism could be a burden on her candidacy.
What's sad is if you look at the crosstabs, Warren's sexism problem includes women voters. They appear to be almost as likely to dislike her for being a woman as a man.
Yeah. That's what we need. Just 1 more candidate to share the spotlight.
I loathe Bloomberg. Please just go away.
Why do you hate him? Is it the gun control issue?
Yes and he was a terrible mayor imo. We need another guy in his late 70's running? And yet another billionaire that has no clue what real life is like for the majority of america.
Which candidate knows what life is like for a majority of Americans?
Bloomberg knows you don’t need ID for groceries?
I know.. that's funny. But I guess my point is, none of these candidates ever know what it's like for true working Americans. So let's not kid ourselves. Regarding Bloomberg personally, I like that he's business friendly and socially liberal. That's right up my alley. I don't have a strong personal opinion of him, but I don't live in metro NYC either. He's not going to do the early states. It looks like he's waiting to see how much traction Warren truly gets, and then may decide to parachute in. He certainly has the money and political apparatus to do such a thing. He also has extensive ties to mayors across the country. You can't underestimate the power of those relationships.
as long as money is the main driver of how the top candidates are selected, the common man will never be adequately represented.
What does that even mean? Is he saying that they shouldn't run for president and only financially support a candidate who they disagree with on key policies? And if they don't then everything is their fault? If that is the point then that's outrageously ridiculous.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,153
What does that even mean? Is he saying that they shouldn't run for president and only financially support a candidate who they disagree with on key policies? And if they don't then everything is their fault? If that is the point then that's outrageously ridiculous.
I think he is saying they should be blitzing the airways with anti-trump ads. thats something they can readily afford. yet I dont recall seeing any from a pac associated with them or from them as citizens....
2, because they have that lind of casj, they are in their way subverting the party system. both entered very late(in relative terms) this cycle.
3. I think Bloomberg is more effective shifting the needle on guns with his group.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Steyer been running anti trump ads since day one. I can see his point with Bloomberg, I don’t like it,
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
What does that even mean? Is he saying that they shouldn't run for president and only financially support a candidate who they disagree with on key policies? And if they don't then everything is their fault? If that is the point then that's outrageously ridiculous.
I think he is saying they should be blitzing the airways with anti-trump ads. thats something they can readily afford. yet I dont recall seeing any from a pac associated with them or from them as citizens....
2, because they have that lind of casj, they are in their way subverting the party system. both entered very late(in relative terms) this cycle.
3. I think Bloomberg is more effective shifting the needle on guns with his group.
I think that's a bullshit argument. If either thinks they can be president, why do they have an obligation to run these ads now rather than spending on their own campaign? Why isn't Warren using her millions of personal or campaign cash to run generic ads against Trump in battleground states?
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,153
What does that even mean? Is he saying that they shouldn't run for president and only financially support a candidate who they disagree with on key policies? And if they don't then everything is their fault? If that is the point then that's outrageously ridiculous.
I think he is saying they should be blitzing the airways with anti-trump ads. thats something they can readily afford. yet I dont recall seeing any from a pac associated with them or from them as citizens....
2, because they have that lind of casj, they are in their way subverting the party system. both entered very late(in relative terms) this cycle.
3. I think Bloomberg is more effective shifting the needle on guns with his group.
I think that's a bullshit argument. If either thinks they can be president, why do they have an obligation to run these ads now rather than spending on their own campaign? Why isn't Warren using her millions of personal or campaign cash to run generic ads against Trump in battleground states?
welp, you are both welcome to your respective opinions.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
What does that even mean? Is he saying that they shouldn't run for president and only financially support a candidate who they disagree with on key policies? And if they don't then everything is their fault? If that is the point then that's outrageously ridiculous.
I think he is saying they should be blitzing the airways with anti-trump ads. thats something they can readily afford. yet I dont recall seeing any from a pac associated with them or from them as citizens....
2, because they have that lind of casj, they are in their way subverting the party system. both entered very late(in relative terms) this cycle.
3. I think Bloomberg is more effective shifting the needle on guns with his group.
I think that's a bullshit argument. If either thinks they can be president, why do they have an obligation to run these ads now rather than spending on their own campaign? Why isn't Warren using her millions of personal or campaign cash to run generic ads against Trump in battleground states?
welp, you are both welcome to your respective opinions.
What does that even mean? Is he saying that they shouldn't run for president and only financially support a candidate who they disagree with on key policies? And if they don't then everything is their fault? If that is the point then that's outrageously ridiculous.
I think he is saying they should be blitzing the airways with anti-trump ads. thats something they can readily afford. yet I dont recall seeing any from a pac associated with them or from them as citizens....
2, because they have that lind of casj, they are in their way subverting the party system. both entered very late(in relative terms) this cycle.
3. I think Bloomberg is more effective shifting the needle on guns with his group.
I think that's a bullshit argument. If either thinks they can be president, why do they have an obligation to run these ads now rather than spending on their own campaign? Why isn't Warren using her millions of personal or campaign cash to run generic ads against Trump in battleground states?
Isn’t Rick a Biden guy? Idk, but if Bloomberg is just filing in Alabama, and I’m assuming Biden is strong I’m Alabama, that’s resources Biden will have to spend there, and Biden can’t spare any money. Just my guess.
But yeah, anyone is free to run for President. That’s why I won’t talk shit about people running third party.
Post edited by Hi! on
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
What does that even mean? Is he saying that they shouldn't run for president and only financially support a candidate who they disagree with on key policies? And if they don't then everything is their fault? If that is the point then that's outrageously ridiculous.
I think he is saying they should be blitzing the airways with anti-trump ads. thats something they can readily afford. yet I dont recall seeing any from a pac associated with them or from them as citizens....
2, because they have that lind of casj, they are in their way subverting the party system. both entered very late(in relative terms) this cycle.
3. I think Bloomberg is more effective shifting the needle on guns with his group.
I think that's a bullshit argument. If either thinks they can be president, why do they have an obligation to run these ads now rather than spending on their own campaign? Why isn't Warren using her millions of personal or campaign cash to run generic ads against Trump in battleground states?
Isn’t Rick a Biden guy? Idk, but if Bloomberg is just filing in Alabama, and I’m assuming Biden is strong I’m Alabama, that’s resources Biden will have to spend there, and Biden can’t spare any money. Just my guess.
But yeah, anyone is free to run for President. That’s why I won’t talk shit about people running third party.
He might be, but that doesn't matter to me.
If Biden is strong through SC, I don't think Bloomberg runs. Same might be said about Pete.
What does that even mean? Is he saying that they shouldn't run for president and only financially support a candidate who they disagree with on key policies? And if they don't then everything is their fault? If that is the point then that's outrageously ridiculous.
I think he is saying they should be blitzing the airways with anti-trump ads. thats something they can readily afford. yet I dont recall seeing any from a pac associated with them or from them as citizens....
2, because they have that lind of casj, they are in their way subverting the party system. both entered very late(in relative terms) this cycle.
3. I think Bloomberg is more effective shifting the needle on guns with his group.
I think that's a bullshit argument. If either thinks they can be president, why do they have an obligation to run these ads now rather than spending on their own campaign? Why isn't Warren using her millions of personal or campaign cash to run generic ads against Trump in battleground states?
Isn’t Rick a Biden guy? Idk, but if Bloomberg is just filing in Alabama, and I’m assuming Biden is strong I’m Alabama, that’s resources Biden will have to spend there, and Biden can’t spare any money. Just my guess.
But yeah, anyone is free to run for President. That’s why I won’t talk shit about people running third party.
He might be, but that doesn't matter to me.
If Biden is strong through SC, I don't think Bloomberg runs. Same might be said about Pete.
I consider filing for a primary to be running for President
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
What does that even mean? Is he saying that they shouldn't run for president and only financially support a candidate who they disagree with on key policies? And if they don't then everything is their fault? If that is the point then that's outrageously ridiculous.
I think he is saying they should be blitzing the airways with anti-trump ads. thats something they can readily afford. yet I dont recall seeing any from a pac associated with them or from them as citizens....
2, because they have that lind of casj, they are in their way subverting the party system. both entered very late(in relative terms) this cycle.
3. I think Bloomberg is more effective shifting the needle on guns with his group.
I think that's a bullshit argument. If either thinks they can be president, why do they have an obligation to run these ads now rather than spending on their own campaign? Why isn't Warren using her millions of personal or campaign cash to run generic ads against Trump in battleground states?
A. Warren isn't a billionaire, she can't influence a race with her own money.
B. Warren actually has a chance to win, Steyer has no chance and I would be surprised to see Bloomberg doing well given his late entry.
If they really were only concerned with Trump winning they have the means to really make a difference. Running and wasting that time and money isn't going to get it done. It's a vanity project.
If anything Bloomberg is just going to fuck over your preferred candidates, if he has any affect in this race. Highly doubtful he is going to draw any votes from Sanders or Warren. Doubt hes going to draw from mayor Pete either given the age demographic. I can see him taking from Biden for sure (given his downward trend) and maybe Amy.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
What does that even mean? Is he saying that they shouldn't run for president and only financially support a candidate who they disagree with on key policies? And if they don't then everything is their fault? If that is the point then that's outrageously ridiculous.
I think he is saying they should be blitzing the airways with anti-trump ads. thats something they can readily afford. yet I dont recall seeing any from a pac associated with them or from them as citizens....
2, because they have that lind of casj, they are in their way subverting the party system. both entered very late(in relative terms) this cycle.
3. I think Bloomberg is more effective shifting the needle on guns with his group.
I think that's a bullshit argument. If either thinks they can be president, why do they have an obligation to run these ads now rather than spending on their own campaign? Why isn't Warren using her millions of personal or campaign cash to run generic ads against Trump in battleground states?
A. Warren isn't a billionaire, she can't influence a race with her own money.
B. Warren actually has a chance to win, Steyer has no chance and I would be surprised to see Bloomberg doing well given his late entry.
If they really were only concerned with Trump winning they have the means to really make a difference. Running and wasting that time and money isn't going to get it done. It's a vanity project.
If anything Bloomberg is just going to fuck over your preferred candidates, if he has any affect in this race. Highly doubtful he is going to draw any votes from Sanders or Warren. Doubt hes going to draw from mayor Pete either given the age demographic. I can see him taking from Biden for sure (given his downward trend) and maybe Amy.
1. Why doesn't Warren put her campaign money to work? It's a hypocritical argument.
2. Anyone who is running thinks they can win. You have to be a narcissist at some level to do so.
3. I agree he takes votes from Biden, but that's fine. It's not going to piss me off. It's no coincidence that he didn't register for earlier primaries. Bloomberg has a complete organization ready to go, so this decision I'd deliberate as to what he thinks he will know about the state of the race at that time. And I would assume that's the viability of the Biden campaign.
4. I agree he doesn't pull from Warren. I think that's the point. Her voters are his concern. He sees the polls.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
What does that even mean? Is he saying that they shouldn't run for president and only financially support a candidate who they disagree with on key policies? And if they don't then everything is their fault? If that is the point then that's outrageously ridiculous.
I think he is saying they should be blitzing the airways with anti-trump ads. thats something they can readily afford. yet I dont recall seeing any from a pac associated with them or from them as citizens....
2, because they have that lind of casj, they are in their way subverting the party system. both entered very late(in relative terms) this cycle.
3. I think Bloomberg is more effective shifting the needle on guns with his group.
I think that's a bullshit argument. If either thinks they can be president, why do they have an obligation to run these ads now rather than spending on their own campaign? Why isn't Warren using her millions of personal or campaign cash to run generic ads against Trump in battleground states?
A. Warren isn't a billionaire, she can't influence a race with her own money.
B. Warren actually has a chance to win, Steyer has no chance and I would be surprised to see Bloomberg doing well given his late entry.
If they really were only concerned with Trump winning they have the means to really make a difference. Running and wasting that time and money isn't going to get it done. It's a vanity project.
If anything Bloomberg is just going to fuck over your preferred candidates, if he has any affect in this race. Highly doubtful he is going to draw any votes from Sanders or Warren. Doubt hes going to draw from mayor Pete either given the age demographic. I can see him taking from Biden for sure (given his downward trend) and maybe Amy.
1. Why doesn't Warren put her campaign money to work? It's a hypocritical argument.
2. Anyone who is running thinks they can win. You have to be a narcissist at some level to do so.
3. I agree he takes votes from Biden, but that's fine. It's not going to piss me off. It's no coincidence that he didn't register for earlier primaries. Bloomberg has a complete organization ready to go, so this decision I'd deliberate as to what he thinks he will know about the state of the race at that time. And I would assume that's the viability of the Biden campaign.
4. I agree he doesn't pull from Warren. I think that's the point. Her voters are his concern. He sees the polls.
There's a chance Bloomberg is doing this to expose warren and Sanders as dangerous to the democratic party by reminding everyone that 6% wealth taxes, mandatory govt healthcare and free debt cancelation will never win the electoral college
We've seen unpopular extremism infiltrate the democratic party and nice guy Joe has been nothing but polite about it. If Bloomberg is here just to raise hell about it, good for him.
Steyer been running anti trump ads since day one. I can see his point with Bloomberg, I don’t like it,
Steyers ads saying "trump should be impeached" is the same as Hillary's central theme of "trump's not qualified " which are both insulting to voters.
Democrats or the DNC should be carpet bombing the swing state airwaves WHY trump is a bad president.
Eugene Robinson also had a column out today that we need to stop calling it quid pro quo. That's too nice and too Latin. Call it what it is... extortion and bribery. I agree with this sentiment. Words matter. Use powerful ones.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,153
Steyer been running anti trump ads since day one. I can see his point with Bloomberg, I don’t like it,
Steyers ads saying "trump should be impeached" is the same as Hillary's central theme of "trump's not qualified " which are both insulting to voters.
Democrats or the DNC should be carpet bombing the swing state airwaves WHY trump is a bad president.
Eugene Robinson also had a column out today that we need to stop calling it quid pro quo. That's too nice and too Latin. Call it what it is... extortion and bribery. I agree with this sentiment. Words matter. Use powerful ones.
exactly.
Dictionary defintions....
extortion
n.
Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
n.
The act or an instance of extorting something, as by psychological pressure.
n.
An excessive or exorbitant charge.
bribery
n.
The act or practice of offering, giving, or taking a bribe.
n.
Theft; robbery; extortion; rapacity.
n.
The act or practice of giving
or taking a bribe, or of influencing or being influenced by a bribe or
bribes; especially, the act of paying or receiving, or of agreeing to
pay or receive, a reward other than legal compensation for the exercise
of official or delegated power irrespective of the dictates of duty, or
for a false judgment or testimony, or for the performance of that which
is known to be illegal or unjust.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Steyer been running anti trump ads since day one. I can see his point with Bloomberg, I don’t like it,
Steyers ads saying "trump should be impeached" is the same as Hillary's central theme of "trump's not qualified " which are both insulting to voters.
Democrats or the DNC should be carpet bombing the swing state airwaves WHY trump is a bad president.
Eugene Robinson also had a column out today that we need to stop calling it quid pro quo. That's too nice and too Latin. Call it what it is... extortion and bribery. I agree with this sentiment. Words matter. Use powerful ones.
exactly.
Dictionary defintions....
extortion
n.
Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
n.
The act or an instance of extorting something, as by psychological pressure.
n.
An excessive or exorbitant charge.
bribery
n.
The act or practice of offering, giving, or taking a bribe.
n.
Theft; robbery; extortion; rapacity.
n.
The act or practice of giving
or taking a bribe, or of influencing or being influenced by a bribe or
bribes; especially, the act of paying or receiving, or of agreeing to
pay or receive, a reward other than legal compensation for the exercise
of official or delegated power irrespective of the dictates of duty, or
for a false judgment or testimony, or for the performance of that which
is known to be illegal or unjust.
This is exactly what I've been thinking. If they keep going with quid pro quo they will be trumped again in public opinion during the upcoming public hearings.
They need to hammer away with the words "bribery and extortion" and repeatedly point out that this is one of the only offenses specifically mentioned as impeachable per the constitution.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,153
The
editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are
informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstandingvalues. It is separate from the newsroom.
Nov. 8, 2019
When Bill Gates founded Microsoft in 1975, the top marginal tax rate
on personal income was 70 percent, tax rates on capital gains and
corporate income were significantly higher than at present, and the
estate tax was a much more formidable levy. None of that dissuaded Mr.
Gates from pouring himself into his business, nor discouraged his
investors from pouring in their money.
Yet he is now the latest affluent American
to warn that Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan for much higher taxes on
the rich would be bad not just for the wealthy but for the rest of
America, too.
Mr. Gates, the
co-founder of Microsoft, suggested on Wednesday that a big tax increase
would result in less economic growth. “I do think if you tax too much
you do risk the capital formation, innovation, U.S. as the desirable
place to do innovative companies — I do think you risk that,” he said.
Other
perturbed plutocrats have made the same point with less finesse. The
billionaire investor Leon Cooperman was downright crude when he declared that Ms. Warren was wrecking the American dream. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, complained on CNBC that Ms. Warren “uses some pretty harsh words” about the rich. He added, “Some would say vilifies successful people.”
Let’s get a few things straight.
The
wealthiest Americans are paying a much smaller share of income in taxes
than they did a half-century ago. In 1961, Americans with the highest
incomes paid an average of 51.5 percent of that income in federal, state
and local taxes. In 2011, Americans with the highest incomes paid just
33.2 percent of their income in taxes, according to a study
by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman published last
year. Data for the last few years is not yet available but would most
likely show a relatively similar tax burden.
The
federal government needs a lot more money. Decades of episodic tax cuts
have left the government deeply in debt: The Treasury is on pace to
borrow more than $1 trillion
during the current fiscal year to meet its obligations. The government
will need still more money for critical investments in infrastructure,
education and the social safety net.
This
is not an endorsement of the particulars of Ms. Warren’s tax plan.
There is plenty of room to debate how much money the government needs,
and how best to raise that money. The specific proposals by Ms. Warren
and one of her rivals, Senator Bernie Sanders, to impose a new federal tax on wealth are innovations that require careful consideration.
But a necessary part of the solution is to collect more from those Americans who have the most.
And there is little evidence to justify Mr. Gates’s concern that tax
increases of the magnitude proposed by Ms. Warren and other candidates
for the Democratic presidential nomination would meaningfully discourage
innovation, investment or economic growth.
The
available evidence strongly suggests that taxation exerts a minor
influence on innovation. Experts have an imperfect understanding of what
drives innovation, but taxation isn’t in the same weight class as
factors including education, research and a consistent legal system.
Congress
has slashed taxation three times in the past four decades, each time
for the stated purpose of spurring innovation, investment and growth.
Each time, the purported benefits failed to materialize. President Trump initiated the most recent experiment in 2017. The International Monetary Fund concluded this year that it had not worked.
Moreover,
while higher tax rates may weigh modestly against innovation and
investment, that calculus is incomplete. It ignores the question of what
the government does with the additional money. It also ignores the
possibility that higher taxes could result in more innovation.
A study of American patent holders
found that innovators tend to come from wealthy families, to grow up in
communities of innovators and to receive high-quality educations in
math and science. Mr. Gates, one of the most successful entrepreneurs in
American history, fits the profile: He grew up in an affluent family
and received the best education money could buy.
The implication of that study, and related research, is that public investment, funded by taxation, could give more kids the kinds of advantages enjoyed by the young Mr. Gates.
There
is no doubt that it is theoretically possible to raise taxes to
prohibitive heights: If people had to pay a tax of 100 percent of the
next dollar they earned, they would be likely to call it a day.
But the alarm bells are out of all proportion with Ms. Warren’s plan. Describing his concerns on Wednesday, Mr. Gates at one point suggested he might be asked to pay $100 billion.
The Warren campaign calculates that under Ms. Warren’s plan, Mr. Gates would owe $6.379 billion in taxes next year.
Notably, that is less than Mr. Gates earned from his investments last
year. Even under Ms. Warren’s plan, there’s a good chance Mr. Gates
would get richer.
To his credit, Mr.
Gates has said that he thinks the wealthy should pay higher taxes. But
that’s not how he behaved on Wednesday. He can demonstrate that he’s
serious about tax increases by setting aside the hyperbole and engaging
in principled and factual debate about the details.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Taxing billionaires 6% every year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected.
The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.
This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets.
So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,838
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Comments
Bloomberg knows you don’t need ID for groceries?
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
At the same time, 41 percent of the voters who support Mr. Biden but not Ms. Warren say they agree with the statement that most of the women who run for president “just aren’t that likable,” likely bolstering concerns among some Democrats that sexism could be a burden on her candidacy.
What's sad is if you look at the crosstabs, Warren's sexism problem includes women voters. They appear to be almost as likely to dislike her for being a woman as a man.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
www.headstonesband.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
But yeah, anyone is free to run for President. That’s why I won’t talk shit about people running third party.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
If Biden is strong through SC, I don't think Bloomberg runs. Same might be said about Pete.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
B. Warren actually has a chance to win, Steyer has no chance and I would be surprised to see Bloomberg doing well given his late entry.
If they really were only concerned with Trump winning they have the means to really make a difference. Running and wasting that time and money isn't going to get it done. It's a vanity project.
If anything Bloomberg is just going to fuck over your preferred candidates, if he has any affect in this race. Highly doubtful he is going to draw any votes from Sanders or Warren. Doubt hes going to draw from mayor Pete either given the age demographic. I can see him taking from Biden for sure (given his downward trend) and maybe Amy.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
2. Anyone who is running thinks they can win. You have to be a narcissist at some level to do so.
3. I agree he takes votes from Biden, but that's fine. It's not going to piss me off. It's no coincidence that he didn't register for earlier primaries. Bloomberg has a complete organization ready to go, so this decision I'd deliberate as to what he thinks he will know about the state of the race at that time. And I would assume that's the viability of the Biden campaign.
4. I agree he doesn't pull from Warren. I think that's the point. Her voters are his concern. He sees the polls.
Good article on Buddha
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Steyers ads saying "trump should be impeached" is the same as Hillary's central theme of "trump's not qualified " which are both insulting to voters.
Democrats or the DNC should be carpet bombing the swing state airwaves WHY trump is a bad president.
There's a chance Bloomberg is doing this to expose warren and Sanders as dangerous to the democratic party by reminding everyone that 6% wealth taxes, mandatory govt healthcare and free debt cancelation will never win the electoral college
We've seen unpopular extremism infiltrate the democratic party and nice guy Joe has been nothing but polite about it. If Bloomberg is here just to raise hell about it, good for him.
extortion
bribery
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This is exactly what I've been thinking. If they keep going with quid pro quo they will be trumped again in public opinion during the upcoming public hearings.
They need to hammer away with the words "bribery and extortion" and repeatedly point out that this is one of the only offenses specifically mentioned as impeachable per the constitution.
The Billionaires Are Getting Nervous
Bill Gates and others warn that higher taxes would lead to lower growth. They have their facts backward.
By The Editorial Board
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.
When Bill Gates founded Microsoft in 1975, the top marginal tax rate on personal income was 70 percent, tax rates on capital gains and corporate income were significantly higher than at present, and the estate tax was a much more formidable levy. None of that dissuaded Mr. Gates from pouring himself into his business, nor discouraged his investors from pouring in their money.
Yet he is now the latest affluent American to warn that Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan for much higher taxes on the rich would be bad not just for the wealthy but for the rest of America, too.
Mr. Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, suggested on Wednesday that a big tax increase would result in less economic growth. “I do think if you tax too much you do risk the capital formation, innovation, U.S. as the desirable place to do innovative companies — I do think you risk that,” he said.
Other perturbed plutocrats have made the same point with less finesse. The billionaire investor Leon Cooperman was downright crude when he declared that Ms. Warren was wrecking the American dream. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, complained on CNBC that Ms. Warren “uses some pretty harsh words” about the rich. He added, “Some would say vilifies successful people.”
Let’s get a few things straight.
The wealthiest Americans are paying a much smaller share of income in taxes than they did a half-century ago. In 1961, Americans with the highest incomes paid an average of 51.5 percent of that income in federal, state and local taxes. In 2011, Americans with the highest incomes paid just 33.2 percent of their income in taxes, according to a study by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman published last year. Data for the last few years is not yet available but would most likely show a relatively similar tax burden.
The federal government needs a lot more money. Decades of episodic tax cuts have left the government deeply in debt: The Treasury is on pace to borrow more than $1 trillion during the current fiscal year to meet its obligations. The government will need still more money for critical investments in infrastructure, education and the social safety net.
This is not an endorsement of the particulars of Ms. Warren’s tax plan. There is plenty of room to debate how much money the government needs, and how best to raise that money. The specific proposals by Ms. Warren and one of her rivals, Senator Bernie Sanders, to impose a new federal tax on wealth are innovations that require careful consideration.
But a necessary part of the solution is to collect more from those Americans who have the most.
And there is little evidence to justify Mr. Gates’s concern that tax increases of the magnitude proposed by Ms. Warren and other candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination would meaningfully discourage innovation, investment or economic growth.
The available evidence strongly suggests that taxation exerts a minor influence on innovation. Experts have an imperfect understanding of what drives innovation, but taxation isn’t in the same weight class as factors including education, research and a consistent legal system.
Congress has slashed taxation three times in the past four decades, each time for the stated purpose of spurring innovation, investment and growth. Each time, the purported benefits failed to materialize. President Trump initiated the most recent experiment in 2017. The International Monetary Fund concluded this year that it had not worked.
Moreover, while higher tax rates may weigh modestly against innovation and investment, that calculus is incomplete. It ignores the question of what the government does with the additional money. It also ignores the possibility that higher taxes could result in more innovation.
A study of American patent holders found that innovators tend to come from wealthy families, to grow up in communities of innovators and to receive high-quality educations in math and science. Mr. Gates, one of the most successful entrepreneurs in American history, fits the profile: He grew up in an affluent family and received the best education money could buy.
The implication of that study, and related research, is that public investment, funded by taxation, could give more kids the kinds of advantages enjoyed by the young Mr. Gates.
There is no doubt that it is theoretically possible to raise taxes to prohibitive heights: If people had to pay a tax of 100 percent of the next dollar they earned, they would be likely to call it a day.
But the alarm bells are out of all proportion with Ms. Warren’s plan. Describing his concerns on Wednesday, Mr. Gates at one point suggested he might be asked to pay $100 billion.
The Warren campaign calculates that under Ms. Warren’s plan, Mr. Gates would owe $6.379 billion in taxes next year. Notably, that is less than Mr. Gates earned from his investments last year. Even under Ms. Warren’s plan, there’s a good chance Mr. Gates would get richer.
To his credit, Mr. Gates has said that he thinks the wealthy should pay higher taxes. But that’s not how he behaved on Wednesday. He can demonstrate that he’s serious about tax increases by setting aside the hyperbole and engaging in principled and factual debate about the details.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Taxing billionaires 6% every year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected.
The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.
This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets.
So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022