Forum Thread

Elizabeth Warren announces run for President

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 30 of 39 Prev 1 2 3 Next
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Chet, your last line says a lot. How the government "works"? Wow, I guess you don't want to know. I know only one word for it: INEFFICIENT. Just look at who's there? Especially at the "top" just like in any industry you need highly qualified people who are properly "vetted", which is not the case. Also the whole antique British model of governing and outdated structure is overly bulky and produces lots of paper, but seldom gets the results which makes this country better. Especially the military is one huge waste basket without accountability.

    On top of that the lobbyists and "billionaires" have free roam to influence this old steam locomotive. Lots of steam and no motion.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Getting back on the topic of Elizabeth Warren, Paul Krugman wrote a complimentary article on Warren this morning entitled,

    Paul Krugman: Elizabeth Warren and Her Party of Ideas

    "She’s what a serious policy intellectual looks like in 2019," writes Krugman. He compares her to Patrick Moynihan.

    "Like Moynihan, she’s a serious intellectual turned influential politician. Her scholarly work on bankruptcy and its relationship to rising inequality made her a major player in policy debate long before she entered politics herself. Like many others, I found one of her key insights — that rising bankruptcy rates weren’t caused by profligate consumerism, that they largely reflected the desperate attempts of middle-class families to buy homes in good school districts — revelatory.'

    Citing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Krugman states, "she has also proved herself able to translate scholarly insights into practical policy...Deceptive financial practices aimed at poorly informed consumers do a lot of harm, and until President Trump sabotaged it, the bureau was by all accounts having a hugely salutary effect on families’ finances."

    Krugman castigates the media for being "destructively lazy" for focusing on her Native-American heritage and her likability, while ignoring her good ideas and achievements. Kind of a similar to what they did with Hillary. The glass ceiling is very high.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Getting back on the topic of Elizabeth Warren, Paul Krugman wrote a complimentary article on Warren this morning entitled,

    Paul Krugman: Elizabeth Warren and Her Party of Ideas

    "She’s what a serious policy intellectual looks like in 2019," writes Krugman. He compares her to Patrick Moynihan.

    "Like Moynihan, she’s a serious intellectual turned influential politician. Her scholarly work on bankruptcy and its relationship to rising inequality made her a major player in policy debate long before she entered politics herself. Like many others, I found one of her key insights — that rising bankruptcy rates weren’t caused by profligate consumerism, that they largely reflected the desperate attempts of middle-class families to buy homes in good school districts — revelatory.'

    Citing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Krugman states, "she has also proved herself able to translate scholarly insights into practical policy...Deceptive financial practices aimed at poorly informed consumers do a lot of harm, and until President Trump sabotaged it, the bureau was by all accounts having a hugely salutary effect on families’ finances."

    Krugman castigates the media for being "destructively lazy" for focusing on her Native-American heritage and her likability, while ignoring her good ideas and achievements. Kind of a similar to what they did with Hillary. The glass ceiling is very high.

    I wrote about that in another thread. The problem is, if you are the first to "run" then likely you are also the first out. The main reason is, if you are part of an whole group who run, then you don't get all the attention and you may survive. So she should have waited and first see what the weak points are of the others and then determine her "plan" of action and then "run". So she soon will be confronted with the same as "runners" in sport; if you start fast you may end slow and exhausted..
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch -- Sorry if I missed your writing about Warren in another thread. If everyone would stay on topic, we would not have to browse all over the place to see what is discussed.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    If Warren does run, I can just hear trump calling her Pocahontas over and over in his campaign rallies.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I don't want to over use the SNL messages but this has some hard truth to it. Likability is important when 60% of voters are uninformed on most issues. A cabinet position is just fine Elizabeth.

    bostonglobe.com/arts/television/2019/01...

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    TJ:

    I like her a lot, and I agree that Elizabeth Warren would be a great person in the cabinet, but I wish that she would drop out of the presidential race, in part because too many people (especially those in the red states) think that she is too aggressive.

    This morning, she unveiled plans to break up the 3 most valuable companies on the planet, Amazon, Facebook, and Google, which will simply certify to all the crazy people that she is not fit to be president.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    that guy in AZ Wrote:

    TJ:

    I like her a lot, and I agree that Elizabeth Warren would be a great person in the cabinet, but I wish that she would drop out of the presidential race, in part because too many people (especially those in the red states) think that she is too aggressive.

    This morning, she unveiled plans to break up the 3 most valuable companies on the planet, Amazon, Facebook, and Google, which will simply certify to all the crazy people that she is not fit to be president.


    I agree. She is a good watchdog type, which is needed to keep big companies in check, but I don't think of her as being a good democratic candidate or even VP.

    She was on MSNBC talking about breaking up Google, Amazon, Apple, etc, etc. She wasn't using her technical terms correctly, or simply didn't understand how internet companies operate. She talked about taking away "their platform" because they were too powerful. It was not clear what she meant by "Platform". Her examples appeared that Amazon would be blocked from selling stuff, but the goverment or some other companies control the listings. Or Apple could only make software, but blocked from selling hardware. Google could only provide search, but not advertize. Overall I she did not have a clear examples.

    Given that these companies operate world wide, if truly threaten with a break up, I'd predict that at least one would threaten move its operations out of the US, say move to Canada or Mexico. The threat might not be 100% real, but real enough to get people talking about a mass exodus of the world top companies.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes her proposal to break up Amazon, Google and Facebook can have appeal from an uniformed base. That proposal kind of goes with her proposal to introduce a wealth tax. What I find exasperating about "big bold ideas" whether it's breaking up businesses or Ocasio-Cortez's New Green Deal or Bernie's Medicare for All or taxing the rich, is that none of these candidates have endeavored to explain how their grandiose plans can become reality with Republicans holding down the Senate, let alone overcome a 60 vote veto proof majority. The 2020 election is not going to change the Republican majority in the Senate, so what actions candidates take are left to executive actions, something that can easily be undone by the next President as Obama so painfully found out.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Yes her proposal to break up Amazon, Google and Facebook can have appeal from an uniformed base. That proposal kind of goes with her proposal to introduce a wealth tax. What I find exasperating about "big bold ideas" whether it's breaking up businesses or Ocasio-Cortez's New Green Deal or Bernie's Medicare for All or taxing the rich, is that none of these candidates have endeavored to explain how their grandiose plans can become reality with Republicans holding down the Senate, let alone overcome a 60 vote veto proof majority. The 2020 election is not going to change the Republican majority in the Senate, so what actions candidates take are left to executive actions, something that can easily be undone by the next President as Obama so painfully found out.

    All this "talk" will lead to "nothing"; looking at the present "field" of candidates, may be it is the case that none will be able to defeat Trump with these types of things. The lack of "unity" in the party may become an huge obstacle to win the Presidency.

    There should be an"solid" platform very soon, in order to not confuse the voters.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I do appreciate her passion and wanting to do big things, even if I do not agree with her. At least her methods are within some rational boundaries.

    My thinking is she striving for a position beyond beyond where she can be the most effective. Seen it happen many times in my professional career, people have ambitions that exceed their abilities; the great CFO that is promoted to CEO,and fails, get fired. Or the amazing software programmer, that becomes Software designer, and designs really bad software.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    wwjd:

    You are exactly correct. What you are talking about is the "Peter Principle."

    The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their "level of incompetence". In other words, an employee is promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another. The concept was elucidated in the 1969 book The Peter Principle by Peter and Raymond Hull.

    An article in Forbes in April of 2018 goes into more detail:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/roddwagner/2018/04/10/new-evidence-the-peter-principle-is-real-and-what-to-do-about-it/#3ab7d14c1809

    When Mitt Romney was running for president, some people felt that he would be a good president because he was a good businessman. That's simply not true because the two positions require different skills.

    Herbert Hoover was a VERY successful businessman - but a terrible president.

    George W. was a reasonably successful businessman - but a terrible president.

    Donald Trump is a terrible businessman (SIX bankruptcies) - and he is even worse as a president.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    that guy in AZ Wrote:

    wwjd:

    You are exactly correct. What you are talking about is the "Peter Principle."

    The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their "level of incompetence". In other words, an employee is promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another. The concept was elucidated in the 1969 book The Peter Principle by Peter and Raymond Hull.

    An article in Forbes in April of 2018 goes into more detail:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/roddwagner/2018/04/10/new-evidence-the-peter-principle-is-real-and-what-to-do-about-it/#3ab7d14c1809

    When Mitt Romney was running for president, some people felt that he would be a good president because he was a good businessman. That's simply not true because the two positions require different skills.

    Herbert Hoover was a VERY successful businessman - but a terrible president.

    George W. was a reasonably successful businessman - but a terrible president.

    Donald Trump is a terrible businessman (SIX bankruptcies) - and he is even worse as a president.

    Our system rewards accomplishment by elevating people out of their area of expertise rather than increasing pay. Probably the exception rather than rule that success at one level is limited.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes, that principle indeed screws up things in this country; lots of "billionaires have no brains either" especially if their "quality" and "knowledge is only "geared" to make money via corruption etc. and which ever way suits them. Society does not matter; it is mostly only "Me. Me, and Me, the rest can fall dead.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Megan McArdle, January 29, 2019: Washington Post: Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is no way to run government -- but a good way to run a campaign.

    McArdle argues that Warren's proposed wealth tax "won't do what she promises and that it won't happen". She further states that, "It is troubling that Warren is reviving a dusty old policy idea that has failed almost everywhere it has been tried".

    She calls it "political theater" and I agree. It kind of goes with Trump's promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. Vote pandering on the left is no more legitimate than vote pandering on the right.