2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Admiral Yi]

Don't make it all into a morality play, we're all fallen. The people who disagree with you aren't evil, they just disagree with you and you'll be better for trying to understand why.

That's what I'm saying.

[Sheilbh]

To be honest, she strikes me as mostly fluff with no real substance.

What do you mean by this? I mean from her wiki biography she seems like a reasonably substantial figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

And I like that she came into politics, from what I can see, in her late-50s/early-60s. She's actually lived unlike so many politicians now whose sole experience is working in a think-tank or for a politician before getting elected in their 30s

On her and Clinton's side I think we really need to start electing older leaders again.

To be fair, she's a freshman in the Congress, so there's only so much substance she can have, which is why I say that I could be swayed. Right now, I don't see the appeal.

Well keeping your head down and only working on a few non-controversial subjects was the method Clinton took and Obama followed. If anything I think Warren's gone the other way, she's taking her stances on her issues and making herself heard. It'll probably cost her in any Presidential election, but it's also what you want politicians to do.

I thought this piece by Peter Beinart was the best on this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/12/the-rise-of-the-new-new-left.html

Personally I'm still entirely behind Biden as the best candidate

[merithyn]

Can you highlight the parts you're having problems with?  I'm not intentionally ignoring anything, and I'm not intentionally taking digs at Yi.

Again, it's not what's there that's the problem. It's what's not there that I take issue with, and it's not a lot. In particular, that she claims to want a balanced way to cut the deficit, but only really suggests taxation and cutting the military. That's not enough, imo, nor is it balanced.

And again, she's a freshman Congressman. There won't be a lot there yet, which is why I said that I could change my mind. Right now, however, she's not someone that I could vote for.

[Ed Anger]

Could someone remind what Warren has done to garner the distaste she gets from people on this board?

For me, it's because she's a woman.

[DGuller]

Can you highlight the parts you're having problems with?  I'm not intentionally ignoring anything, and I'm not intentionally taking digs at Yi.

Again, it's not what's there that's the problem. It's what's not there that I take issue with, and it's not a lot. In particular, that she claims to want a balanced way to cut the deficit, but only really suggests taxation and cutting the military. That's not enough, imo, nor is it balanced.

And again, she's a freshman Congressman. There won't be a lot there yet, which is why I said that I could change my mind. Right now, however, she's not someone that I could vote for.

That's understandable, she's definitely not qualified to run for president.  What I can't even begin to fathom is the intense antipathy for her.  You don't get that from stuff that's not there on that link.

[frunk]

It's the lack of real suggestions. "Tax the rich. Give to the poor. Cut funding for the military." Hell, that kind of stuff was touted in my 7th-grade Social Studies class by competing teams when we held mock elections. I need more substance than that from someone who wants to run the country.

It's more than Obama or the latter Bush ever offered up, unless you count compassionate conservatism or hope/change as substantive policy.  At this point I wouldn't vote for her for president either, but as far as I'm concerned the biggest long term problem in the country is the growing wealth/income disparity.  She's at least talking about the right issues even if the how isn't well formed yet.

[Sheilbh]

I suppose, but there also has to be a point where it comes down to hard facts. Our budget is a mess, and while no one wants to take money away from the poor, that has to happen to an extent or the situation will get worse and worse.

Do you have to take money from the poor? I mean you've got historically low levels of revenue and low tax rates. You spend more on defence than the next 14 countries combined. You've also got the most inefficient healthcare system in the world so the state spends more providing healthcare to the elderly and poor than the UK does on the NHS. From a right-wing perspective you've also got a very inefficient and expensive to administer welfare system. There's lots of things to do with you budget - passing one would probably be a clarifying idea - but I don't think there's any driving necessity to cut money to the poor, or to raise taxes, or to cut defence. There are other options.

Of those I'd say not cutting money to the poor is the most plausible because it costs less than not raising taxes and not cutting defence.

I guess it's not so much the morality as it is the lack of long-term thinking that bugs me. She offers the simple answers, but if it really were that simple, it would have been done long ago. There's a complexity in these questions that's lacking in her answers.

Long-term thinking's mostly nonsense though. I think of that CBO projection that the US will reach 100% debt to GDP in about 25 years. The assumptions are that no policies are changed and that growth is about average.

I can't see the benefit of planning any further ahead than 10-15 years at most. Policies will always change to reflect new realities - every country in the developed world's passed some form or other of significant pensions reform in the past 25 years. The world looked entirely different in 1988 or in 1963 before then.

Obviously you make the best policies you can at the time on the information you have and you've got to pay for it as you go. But I think at most you can plan ahead for about 10-15 years and even then only in broad strategic strokes.

[Sheilbh]

It's more than Obama or the latter Bush ever offered up, unless you count compassionate conservatism or hope/change as substantive policy.  At this point I wouldn't vote for her for president either, but as far as I'm concerned the biggest long term problem in the country is the growing wealth/income disparity.  She's at least talking about the right issues even if the how isn't well formed yet.

You forgot old people, which is a part of that.

[Admiral Yi]

Long-term thinking's mostly nonsense though. I think of that CBO projection that the US will reach 100% debt to GDP in about 25 years. The assumptions are that no policies are changed and that growth is about average.

Short term thinking about long term demographic trends is mentally deficient.

[Sheilbh]

Short term thinking about long term demographic trends is mentally deficient.

What?

[Admiral Yi]

Short term thinking about long term demographic trends is mentally deficient.

What?

Anyone who ignores demographic effects on public finances that occur in the future is being stupid.

[merithyn]

That's understandable, she's definitely not qualified to run for president.  What I can't even begin to fathom is the intense antipathy for her.  You don't get that from stuff that's not there on that link.

I don't have it, so I can't speak to that. I don't intensely hate her; I just wouldn't vote for her. Especially not over Hillary.

[merithyn]

It's more than Obama or the latter Bush ever offered up, unless you count compassionate conservatism or hope/change as substantive policy.  At this point I wouldn't vote for her for president either, but as far as I'm concerned the biggest long term problem in the country is the growing wealth/income disparity.  She's at least talking about the right issues even if the how isn't well formed yet.

I didn't want Obama or Bush Jr as my president, either. And her suggestions are talking points. Nothing more or less. I'm glad that she's talking about it, but so are a lot of Democrats. Until she has some real solid suggestions, she's not worth bothering with.

[merithyn]

Do you have to take money from the poor? I mean you've got historically low levels of revenue and low tax rates. You spend more on defence than the next 14 countries combined. You've also got the most inefficient healthcare system in the world so the state spends more providing healthcare to the elderly and poor than the UK does on the NHS. From a right-wing perspective you've also got a very inefficient and expensive to administer welfare system. There's lots of things to do with you budget - passing one would probably be a clarifying idea - but I don't think there's any driving necessity to cut money to the poor, or to raise taxes, or to cut defence. There are other options.

You've just said a lot more in this paragraph than I've heard from Elizabeth Warren the entire time she's been on the stump. But yes, most of what you're talking about is what needs to happen, and part of that will take money away from the poor. Not a lot, and hopefully, it will be put into a better program that gives more to those who need it and less to those who don't. But that's not enough to hang an election on.

Long-term thinking's mostly nonsense though. I think of that CBO projection that the US will reach 100% debt to GDP in about 25 years. The assumptions are that no policies are changed and that growth is about average.

I can't see the benefit of planning any further ahead than 10-15 years at most. Policies will always change to reflect new realities - every country in the developed world's passed some form or other of significant pensions reform in the past 25 years. The world looked entirely different in 1988 or in 1963 before then.

Obviously you make the best policies you can at the time on the information you have and you've got to pay for it as you go. But I think at most you can plan ahead for about 10-15 years and even then only in broad strategic strokes.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. There are policies that have to look at the long-term - like ecological polices, retirement plans, medical care for the long haul, etc.

[DGuller]

You've just said a lot more in this paragraph than I've heard from Elizabeth Warren the entire time she's been on the stump. But yes, most of what you're talking about is what needs to happen, and part of that will take money away from the poor. Not a lot, and hopefully, it will be put into a better program that gives more to those who need it and less to those who don't. But that's not enough to hang an election on.

I haven't followed her campaign, but from what I heard, she did say a lot more than that.  For example, she made an argument that the rich should pay more in taxes, because all sorts of infrastructure the tax money buys enables them to build and maintain wealth.