Warren's World

My view is that the money belongs to the man who earns it, not to the US government. The top earners already pay the vast majority of the taxes.

We are involved in too many foreign wars.. However, as long as we are involved in them, the people in the military should be provided the best possible.

 

About the Electoral College - from here: Vox - Why the Electoral College is the absolute worst, explained
Excerpt:

Let's remember this regarding the Electoral College:
*A state's number of electors equals the number of representatives plus two electors for both senators the state has in the United States Congress. The number of representatives is based on the respective populations, determined every 10 years by the United States Census.
*The Winner-Takes-All-Rule corrupts the popular-vote by allocating ALL EC-voters to the winner of the popular-vote in that state. Meaning that, if you did not vote for the winner, your vote is counted into that of the majority popular-vote. Which is tantamount to not being accounted for at all. Your vote is simply thrown away and the majority-vote takes its place as the winner.
*Why is that unfair? Because the total popular-vote across the nation should decide the winner of the presidential election, and ONLY THE TOTAL-AGGREGATE OF THAT VOTE!
*Not by means of the EC-vote per state, which is a number fixed in a strange way such that, say, a presidential vote in California is not worth the same popular-vote count as in Alabama. (Meaning that a vote for the presidency in some states is HEAVIER than the same vote in other states! See the the comparable-difference in state-by-state weight of the individual vote here: FairVote)

And, here: The New Republic here: The Case Against the Popular Vote
Excerpt:

And frankly, the popular-voting results reported on-the-night of the popular-vote to Congress is more than sufficient to elect a PotUS. We do not need an Electoral College, which manipulates the popular-vote ...

*Don't forget that the total number of Electoral College seats allowable in the HofR is a function of the state's total population, which is itself determined by recurrent ten-year population estimates per state. But the winner-takes-all rule means that ALL THE EC-VOTES go to only the party that wins the state's majority vote.
**Meaning further that IF there are only two parties listed for voting, then only the majority will clearly win. But presume that three, four or five parties are running - then it is possible that a party garnering less than half the majority of total votes will be declared the winner.
***And, frankly, there is nothing honestly wrong with such happening. It does weaken the two-party "front" that exists today. And many think that is not such a bad outcome!

 

One of the arguments for the electoral college is that it requires the candidates to campaign in all states. Not in just the highly populated states. Hilary failed to do that. She was out campaigned by the only republican candidate she could have beaten.

 

Even if the popular-vote were ONLY COUNTED and relayed to Congress, we could keep the Electoral College. We can't kill it without a painful Congressional Fight because it is an Amendment to the Constitution.. But, what might be done is that the Supremes find the Winner-Take-All-Rule to be unfair and non-democratic - and then the Federal government simply asks that the states report the popular-vote only to Congress. Which knows how to count! And will thus name the winner of the popular-vote - WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY TO RUN A REAL-DEMOCRACY!

Congress could get rid of the EC-rule of each state determining how many votes are necessary to win the state election of the PotUS. And simply require that the states report the unmodified pure popular-vote as all Real Democracies do on the the rest of this planet. (The European Union today (and after WW2) remodeled itself upon the US. But, it pointedly stayed away from the US's manner for electing the Executive employing an Electoral College. For which it concocted the European Commission, which is run centrally but its "Board of Directors" are one representative each from the member nations.

It has recently created a Real Parliament, which is constituted by representatives in relation to their population-size. That body now votes all laws common to the EU.

So, the EU kinda-sorta "mimics" the US in most of the principals of any democracy. With however one key exception. Wanna guess which one?

The one about the Winner-Takes-All-Rule of each EU-state vote for representatives to its Parliament! Which decides who is elected to run the EU "Commission", which is effectively the central-governance of the EU. But the EU-countries maintain most internal country matters in their own right. (For instance, taxation and budget-expenditures.) The European Union does not yet have an elected-Executive. It is taking one helluva long-time getting around to it, though! ...

 

Since you do not know anything about the origins of the electoral college of how the constitution is changed I saw no point if giving any thought or credence to your arguments.

 

That would still not solve he problem of not campaigning in small states. We deserve to be represented.

 

...

Read the graph. Your prediction doesn't match what actually happened.

 

Well, may I suggest that such is myopic?

We live in a market-economy and our financial destiny is decided by Supply&Demand. Which is the first lesson one learns if they ever take an course in Economics.

Supply&Demand is essentially constituted of those who work and those who own or run organizations in which people work. Both such workers pay national taxes.

One has to go back to the end of 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries for the first time that American governance (meaning Washington, DC) got involved in deciding by national law who controls economic activity. [Appropriate editorial graphic of the time here.]

Because without oversight, markets were/are agglomerating and price-competition was/is diminishing. The main concern was concentration of markets and the lack of real competition, and thus exorbitantly high prices for goods&services.

Fast forward a century! Guess what is on the minds of anybody taking the time to think about was has happened over the past fifty-years. It has been the concentration upwards of industries and their ability to influence pricing.

Our economy has major competitors that carve out substantial pieces of our economy and "set prices" that are convenient to them. They then pretend that their is competition. But, is there really?

Frankly, what happens is that (aside from aircraft-manufacturing) there are usually three top manufacturers. The second and third base their pricing (without any common consultation that would be illegal) on the price-leader. And others within this Unofficial Cartel do exactly the same if they want "their party of the market-booty"

We-the-sheeple consumers badly need someone in Washington to do the economic investigative-work on the rampant cartelization that has occured in the pursuit of maximized-profits by agglomerating markets. Dammit for the second time in history! Have we learned NOTHING from history? Cartels need to be broken-up such that they all start really competing.

Well put! No doubt about that.

Not to worry, the DoD has more than enough money as it is. Perhaps it could be asked to spend less, however. But when has anyone ever investigated the DoD for suspected waste. When's the last time you saw a report on "DoD Waste"?

We had no real DoD before WW2, and still won the Second World War (almost single handed). Also, we were prepared for Vietnam, and they still whipped our asses! The PotUS need only realize that the American public should be asked, and not just assume, that what they want is necessary to police-the-world. I suspect that responsibility, however, is for the HofR. Now, who runs the HofR?

When's the last time we saw a PotUS explain to we-the-sheeple and defend his Budget Requests?!?

Huh? When?

PS: And here's an interesting study that tries to answer the above question: The Disturbing Ways We Waste Money [On] Our Military Budget

 

You can suggest all you want. He was still the one who earned it. He is getting the same benefits from the government as the person who paid no taxes. Having someone pay more for something just because he can is unAmerican. They don't charge more for products just because someone can afford to pay more.

As far as I am concerned, this is a completely separate issue. If a person is risking his life for his country, he deserves to have the best weapons to do it. I spent too many years in the military where there were years where we were concerned about running out of toilet paper.

 

!st Warren did not make her own money unless by making you mean marrying rich. twice no less, hard to feature her as a trophy wife in any sort of contest worth entering left alone winning but there you have it.. And no that has nothing to do with her appearance and everything to do with her personality or lack there of.

2nd her economic plan as judged by people on both the left and right is a compost of wishful thinking out and out lies and numbers that don't add up,

3rd The EC doesn't disenfranchise anyone. It does however prevent the sort of crass tyranny of the majority that happens all too often in European parliamentary systems where in a handful of big Cities dominate the electoral process. and the needs and desires of everyone else be damned if not completely ignored.

 

Geez has many times does it have to be stated THERE IS NO NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE. There has never been a NPV on anything in this country. The STATES elect the President.

 

I may be wrong (it happens) but has Warren spent any time on international policy issues? If she has, it has escaped my attention. The world is more than just money and banking. It certainly is about more than medicare for all. Primarily, I don't trust Warren's numbers at all. I believe there is increasing evidence she has understated them by 50%. Believe she has understated them by 75%. Nor do I approve of her ditzy, arm waving behavior that seems more appropriate for a high school cheerleader.

 

Would immigration policy be an international policy?

SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR EXPANSIVE EXECUTIVE POWER IN TRUMP’S SECOND TERM, WHILE MAKING THAT SECOND TERM MORE LIKELY:

Elizabeth Warren: As President, Maybe I’ll Just Freeze Deportations Until Congress Agrees To Pass A Massive Amnesty Bill.

 

Warren knows how to find the $bucks!

 

Yeah, it's only been almost 250 years, why

Sad that after nearly 250 years, the Left doesn't know who the Presidential Electorate is, but Trump in his first election figured it right out.

Maybe nobody on the Left is smart enough to be President?

 

Maybe????!!!!

 

No, s/he is getting Better Benefits from the DoD than any ordinary citizen who does not benefit from an Employer Healthcare Plan.

Which is the point I am trying to make. Why should healthcare be offered only to those in military-service or healthcare from those companies that have private-insurance. Healthcare is not just a "nice thing to have".

It is the key determinant of lifespan, and I figure that is a benefit that ALL AMERICANS deserve to have offered to them by National Healthcare!

And ditto for post-secondary education that is free only up through high-school, because nobody has the courage to shout loud-enough to have it offered at very-low-cost to our kids today. Whyzzat? Because we have learned NOTHING from the factual evidence that the Manufacturing Industries are no longer the major employers in America since the 1980s when southeast-Asia started attracting the goods-production business. American Industry today offers jobs to barely 12% of the total national workforce. Meaning what? This: It is only by means of higher-education that our children will find a decent, well-paying work nowadays! (Only 45% of high-school graduates continue on through a Tertiary Education, and of them only about 70% actually graduate with a diploma!

(I did not invent this factual information above. The stats come from the National Bureau of Education Statistics.)

And as far as I am concerned, nobody in military service today should be "risking his/her life". For what reason?

To defend us against crazed and militant islamist over in the middle-east? I am closer to them here in France than you way over in the US. And the French have more lost (here at home) of their own who died at the hands of these crazed wonkers. In fact, the France is fighting Islamists in central Africa with a lost of 3/4 per year. And yet, nobody is panicking. And the French DoD budget is only one third of yours in the US ... !

 

Oh, wow! Stop the world, I wanna get off ... !

 

Now I'm an old guy- but that gives me a vast advantage in experience and opportunity to see the long-term big picture.

Once upon a time, we had Journalism, meaning honest reporting of the news as facts- and opinion not being used as the core of the "news'. In other words, our free press has lost the ability to report people truth, and turned to attempting to brainwash them according to our own way of thinking. With that practice today- the left sided media is by far the major culprit. Year ago, CNN was my first news source, and I watched many of the people who I now find have sold out. Over time, I watched the scales being tilted by misinformation, distortion, and fabrication until there was no balance at all, and it became pure propaganda. This is a dismissal of core standards, things that used to be the benchmark of the press. Unfortunately, it's promoting the dismissal of crucial personal values by many people as well, and that is degrading our society just as it has degraded our press.

The problem with this is there are a lot of Americans who don't think for themselves, and fail to question the credibility of this kind of "news". As a result, they think of themselves as informed, rather than manipulated and brainwashed. If you do some in-depth study in the way "news' is reported on today's CNN and the prime competitor FOX- and follow that up with some fact checking, you wind up discovering that CNN invariably manipulates all facts, deletes those inconvenient to the desired viewer impression and manufactures "facts" by mixing bits of truth with fabrications.

FOX on the other hand will leave out of not emphasize things that are negative to the conservative audience, but I don't see the fabrication or the the manipulation- or the gross blurring of news with opinion.
It's not perfect, but it is vastly more realistic than CNN and it's friends. It's also been leading the ratings for the last three years, and I think that is the reason. There are still a lot of people who resent being manipulated by bias.

Trump IS NOT the issue here. He will be history in a few years, just like any other president. A president can make many policies, however a president cannot make laws- only congress can do that; so Trump is not taking over the world or any such BS, nor will he destroy anything. He may not get all his promises fulfilled, but that won't be for lack of trying.

The real issue is the effort to turn America into something unrelated to the constitution and all the values that have made it great. No president and no nation is perfect, but there is no other nation in the world that has offered greater opportunity, greater freedom and greater promise. It is a work in progress, but the world leader. Only an idiot fixes what isn't broken, and turns it into junk. That is the real issue; the idea that people are entitled to everything and it should be free- which will result in our having nothing, and yet paying dearly for it. It reminds me of a younger generation inheriting the wealth of those who worked long and hard to get them ahead- and instead, just throwing parties and going through their inheritance as fast as possible, eventually waking up and finding there is no more. This is happening to a large percentage of lottery winners, most winding up bankrupt in 5 years or so, totally due to the lack of the ability to manage their gift and control their own actions.

Our national character has weakened substantially over the years since the hippies decided to call life one big party without responsibilities. We have quit raising children to be men and women- now we just allow them to grow up, assuming that strength of character will bloom along with it, or that those things didn't matter. As role models- we give them nothing. We drug kids with behavioral issues, and tell them it's not their fault. We have three times as many lawyers per capita as any other nation in the world, and the airwaves are saturated with their ads telling people they are entitled, and somebody owes them. Our people have lost pride in themselves in a multitude of ways. Our population is becoming obese, many have so little self-respect that they tattoo mindless crap on their bodies to get attention, they dress without pride, and drug themselves into a stupor to avoid reality and the challenges of life. That mindset exposes them to manipulation- and to becoming dependent on people who promise them unrealistic things for free. The word "Free" has become the buzzword for marketing the socialism that is transforming the democratic party of today, and there is no shortage of people willing to sign on without asking where the money is coming from.

Regardless of what happens today, that effort to gut this nation's wealth and strength will continue. Trump is only revealing it, it will take courageous people to reject it across the board.
IF WE DO NOT- EVERYTHING AMERICA STANDS FOR WILL BE LOST.
That is what is as stake.

 

K. Bye.

 

Income tax rates coming down per se are not the issue. Effective rates are.

We have a 5 trill budget and spend almost 2trill more on private health care.
That is 7 trill, we have a yearly income of 20 trill, We need a tax rate of about 30%
to meet our present spending.

Well at 67 I am just looking for a comfortable retirement not making money for my kids to inherit. Adding the 15,000 grand that I can pull out every year with no loss of principal, a Very small pension and my SS gives me what I need. I risked money investing when I was in my 40s and 50s not now.

 

Greed? You are the one wanting to take from others. That’s greed.

 

"Taking?" "Greed?" You've got your English wrong.

It is called "contributing" to the "common weal". Which is that of the common good. The word goes back to the 14th century, and some of us yet do not have the tiniest notion of what it means. (Still employed in some places, for instance, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Your ignorance in the matter of communal fairness is typically that of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is debatable".

Go back to sixth-grade, take it over again ...

 

WAKEY WAKEY ...

Effective rates are decided by General Rates.

And not the other way around ...

I don't know from where you get the above "tripe".

There are only three on the Federal level; one Mandatory, another Debt Interest, and the third Discretionary. Meaning this:

Discretionary Spending, ie., that which depends upon the discretion of the PotUS and approval by Congress, looks like this currently:


The DoD gets a whopping-large chunk of 57%! Where the hell is the World-War that justifies that amount?

Nowhere! The above Discretionary Budget was Donald Dork literally giving megabuck-contrats to Defense-industries so they would, in turn, finance his reelection campaign!

Wakey! Wakey! ...

 

I'm a Yank who lives in France. I really don't have any pulse on the politics in the US. (French politics are sufficiently boring!)

French TV showed Donald Dork's latest "reunion with the people", a gala-rally where he shat on just about everybody else/thing ... and the crowd loved it. Believe me, the French news-people put this "half-minute political tirade" up on national TV because they thought the French should know what a jerk he is. From what he said to the crowd, that fact was patently obvious from anybody looking. Nonetheless, those in the jam-packed auditorium where it happened lapped it up. They loved him!

Yes, I know, most political-jerks can find their mindless following. But I have never seen this sort of imbecilic political-movement - coming from a multi-billionaire who thinks no real upper-limits on wealth are God's gift to mankind.

Far too low income-taxes upon the rich are simply an effective means for the rich to get richer (without the slightest need for their ill-gained riches that they leave mostly to their kids who do not deserve it) - whilst the poor go-to-hell where they belong! (See footnote!)

The last time that upper-class hedonism happened the event that took place subsequently upset the richness-apple-cart like none before in human history. It was in Moscow in what is called the October Revolution of 1917. No, I am not saying that the resulting Communism was "goodness for the Russian people". They eventually saw the error of their ways and dumped Communism.

MY POINT

What I am saying is that where there is a will, there is a way. And that "way" is not always as peaceful as one might want it to be. The Watts Uprising in 1965 showed what could happen in the US, which has still not learned its lesson about Abject Poverty and what it can do to people ... !

FN: From the Census Bureau here:
"In 2018, there were 38.1 million people in poverty, approximately 1.4 million fewer people than 2017."