2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Bogative]

You are trying to do two contradictory things at once:

You want to denounce “the new rules” of seeing offensive speech everywhere and whine because your opponents are not conforming to the stereotype that you denounce. playing by the rules they created and forced upon their ideological opponents.

I corrected your obvious error.

 

[theprestige]

Here's the first paragraph from a WaPo article:

I find those stats quite amazing.

I guess the interesting question for candidates like Bloomberg and Warren is: Do we like Big Money candidates because they can fund their campaign out of their own pockets, without owing favors to anyone? Or do we not like Big Money candidates because we assume you can't amass big money without a certain amount of corruption and exploitation?

 

[varwoche]

Instead of bye-bye, how about see you later? Later on after Democratic primary voters kick all their at-risk candidates to the curb and nominate an old, rich white person.

The Dems sent a black person to the white house not so long ago, and meanwhile Dear Leader (an old, vastly less rich white person, a loser) doesn't use a dog whistle -- he uses a siren.

In short, spare me the sanctimony.

 

[Beeyon]

More accurately, not gain. Warren's tax would be less than inflation, so the big bag of money wouldn't be shrinking, just not growing by itself as fast as he would like it to.

Inflation isn't a "gain"! If your wealth grows 2% while inglation is 3%, you have lost wealth over the year.

I'd like to see a discussion of a wealth tax rate that is a fraction of the difference between inflation and the S&P500 growth. Say 0.5*(S&P500-inflation), capped between 0% and 5%.

 

[Stacyhs]

Here's the first paragraph from a WaPo article:

I find those stats quite amazing.

Amazing but not surprising considering the vast amount of his own personal wealth he's put into his campaign since announcing.

 

[ArchSas]

Amazing but not surprising considering the vast amount of his own personal wealth he's put into his campaign since announcing.

Yeah... I was just about to point that out, too. I'm struggling to see the significance of a billionaire being able to pay for a bunch of ads and staff. It's not like all of that was accomplished as the result of a grassroots effort. All I see in that article is a very wealthy man trying to buy his way into the race.

 

[Aridas]

I guess the interesting question for candidates like Bloomberg and Warren is: Do we like Big Money candidates because they can fund their campaign out of their own pockets, without owing favors to anyone? Or do we not like Big Money candidates because we assume you can't amass big money without a certain amount of corruption and exploitation?

Mmm. The first is a potential positive, for the rare case that they actually do fund their campaign out of their own pocket. Trump certainly didn't, despite his claims of being a billionaire. I haven't followed Steyer or Bloomberg well enough to comment on either there, though. The second is not quite true. Corruption and exploitation is not necessarily the case when it comes to ways to make big money in today's world - it's just usually the case.

For me, neither of those is a most important concern, though. The increasingly negative effects on society (and even, to a lesser extent, upon the very rich themselves) that come hand in hand with a far, far too large wealth gap is a nasty problem, though, and a problem that tends to actively work to chop away at the very foundations of a working democracy. That a billionaire is almost certain to not consider it to actually be a problem and to actively work to make it even worse is more of a problem.

Going further, though, there's still the old saying that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not quite true, of course, but money is a form of power and sufficient power does make giving into dark temptation have virtually no real consequences. As a result of that, at last check, the richer a person is, the worse their morals and ethics tend to be, especially if they're raised with that power shielding them (like Trump, but not even remotely only him). That's also one of the underlying problems with excessively rich people in power, provided that they don't have extremely firm checks on what they're allowed to do with that power.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the first paragraph from a WaPo article:

I find those stats quite amazing.

The Seattle market is saturated with Bloomberg ads.

I don't want Bloomberg or Biden but Bloomberg has a much better chance of beating Trump if that is our number one priority.

 

[Cabbage]

Instead of bye-bye, how about see you later? Later on after Democratic primary voters kick all their at-risk candidates to the curb and nominate an old, rich white person.

Uhhh....because she's saying bye to you. LOL!

 

[Cabbage]

I guess the interesting question for candidates like Bloomberg and Warren is: Do we like Big Money candidates because they can fund their campaign out of their own pockets, without owing favors to anyone? Or do we not like Big Money candidates because we assume you can't amass big money without a certain amount of corruption and exploitation?

Speak for yourself. Those questions don't interest me; they're far too broad. If you're looking for a single one-size-fits-all answer you're bound to be disappointed in this case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess the interesting question for candidates like Bloomberg and Warren is: Do we like Big Money candidates because they can fund their campaign out of their own pockets, without owing favors to anyone? Or do we not like Big Money candidates because we assume you can't amass big money without a certain amount of corruption and exploitation?

Trump killed that nonsense when he claimed he would use his own billions and therefore not be beholden to any donors.

I doubt anyone is going to fall for that crap again.

 

[Brainster]

I guess the interesting question for candidates like Bloomberg and Warren is: Do we like Big Money candidates because they can fund their campaign out of their own pockets, without owing favors to anyone? Or do we not like Big Money candidates because we assume you can't amass big money without a certain amount of corruption and exploitation?

Warren? I'm not a fan, but she is not self-financing, although so far she is shunning the big fundraisers. And her personal wealth is not 1/1000th of that of Bloomberg.

 

[Brainster]

Pardon the interjection but yes, I think this is true. And even though we disagree on, er, just about everything, I appreciate your often sensible comments in this thread. And I don't appreciate the tribal bs you're replying to.

Belated ty. I may be wrong but I strive to be honest.

 

[Matthew Best]

It's time to stop defending an old, white billionaire and his use of racist dog whistle language just because he's a Democrat.

But is it yet time to stop defending an old, white billionaire and his use of racist dog whistle language because he's a Republican?

 

[Brainster]

Inflation isn't a "gain"! If your wealth grows 2% while inglation is 3%, you have lost wealth over the year.

I'd like to see a discussion of a wealth tax rate that is a fraction of the difference between inflation and the S&P500 growth. Say 0.5*(S&P500-inflation), capped between 0% and 5%.

That would usually be more than 2%. But the problem here is twofold. First, one assumes the government wants revenue even in bad S&P years, and second can you seriously see Warren or Sanders tying the tax to the S&P?

The real problem with most of the "wealth" taxes is that they are actually asset taxes. Warren's plan is entirely asset-based. This is not a problem for the Gates and the Buffets and the Bezoses of the world, because their wealth is in stock, where the assets are matched off with liabilities before it comes to them. But individuals who own commercial real estate may run into problems because there the whole idea is to buy with leverage (debt). So say you own a large commercial property worth $100 million in total, with $75 million in debt? You only have $25 million in equity and yet Lizzie Warren takes her axe and says you owe $2 million.

 

[Aridas]

That would usually be more than 2%. But the problem here is twofold. First, one assumes the government wants revenue even in bad S&P years, and second can you seriously see Warren or Sanders tying the tax to the S&P?

The real problem with most of the "wealth" taxes is that they are actually asset taxes. Warren's plan is entirely asset-based. This is not a problem for the Gates and the Buffets and the Bezoses of the world, because their wealth is in stock, where the assets are matched off with liabilities before it comes to them. But individuals who own commercial real estate may run into problems because there the whole idea is to buy with leverage (debt). So say you own a large commercial property worth $100 million in total, with $75 million in debt? You only have $25 million in equity and yet Lizzie Warren takes her axe and says you owe $2 million.

Correction. $1 million, assuming that debt actually wouldn't be factored in when it comes to any final result, which is not a particularly safe assumption. No wealth tax in effect for the first $50 million. Similarly, you're assuming that the individual directly owns this $100 million in assets to turn over, rather than having that much as part of a company. How many people, exactly, do you think would honestly be affected by that?

 

[Belz...]

Old, white, billionaire Democratic candidate for president, Michael Bloomberg, thinks Cory Booker – who happens to be black – sure is "well spoken" for a black person.

Link


No word as of yet if Bloomberg thinks the other black guy in the race is clean and articulate.

Amazing how Republicans suddenly care about race, sometimes.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Wow. Warren actually called out another candidate's actions specifically. Specifically, she called on Buttigieg to stop with the private closed door fundraisers - to be transparent about what's being said and where money's coming from. To be clear, this didn't sound like an actual attack on Buttigieg so much as a specific application of her more general call for transparency that's pretty much required for the anti-corruption efforts that are central to what she's been pushing for.

Pete gets pretty hostile with reporters asking when there will be transparency around his fundraising events. Pete's position is that he won't be transparent about his fundraising and he won't explain why. He seemed pretty annoyed to be even asked the question.

https://twitter.com/PrettyGoodPhil/status/1203350790590664705

Bernie and Warren (to a lesser extent) are showing that popular candidates don't have to go whoring themselves out to the rich to fund their campaigns. Hopefully this kind of response is damaging to Pete.

 

[dudalb]

The Dems sent a black person to the white house not so long ago, and meanwhile Dear Leader (an old, vastly less rich white person, a loser) doesn't use a dog whistle -- he uses a siren.

In short, spare me the sanctimony.

And the guy is so painfully obivious about what he is doing.
Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Democrats.
Yes, there is a lot of mindless spouting of dogma regardless of circumstance. But at least they don't have Party leader who is either a bigot or somebody who makes no hesistation about using bigotry as a political weapon.

 

[dudalb]

The Seattle market is saturated with Bloomberg ads.

I don't want Bloomberg or Biden but Bloomberg has a much better chance of beating Trump if that is our number one priority.

It's sure as hell mine.
In fact, it's my only priority.
And I remain unconvinced that nominating somebody pretty far to the left by US Standards (only ones that matter in this context) is the best way of doing this. I don't believe there is some vast hidden reservoir of "progressives" voter out there waiting for the right candidate to bring them to life.