• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

OFFICIAL Elizabeth Warren is awesome thread

knowell said:
More than most, less than some. Bill Clinton is the perfect example of someone who was not an ideologue. He did an about face after the rejection of Hillary Care. He governed as a centrist if not a republican after that. I think Obama has certain things that he is very ideological about, such as healthcare and expanding the social safety net. He is less ideological than a lot of the posters on this site, but he is over 50 and time moderates the views of most of us.
Click to expand...

Not really true. Obama just happened to get healthcare passed where Clinton was unable to do so. Good lord he tried to compromise on that to bring some moderate republicans into the fold but they were having none of it. Total scorched earth strategy.
 
Only in America does a 3 percentage point difference in the top marginal tax rate separate the "pragmatic business-friendly politician" from the "socialist ideologue politician". :rulz:
 
military experience is a turn off for me. we already do enough to dump all money in to that hole. another president with MORE ties to the military will only make it worse.
 
Liquid Karma said:
All good points. I'd counter with the thought that it's a lot easier to champion job creation and growth for the middle class when you've actually gone out and run a successful business instead of just writing about it. It lends a bit more credibility to the candidate in my eyes.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and I also agree with the converse: that if you're getting credit for being successful you should also lose some credibility for failing at running businesses albeit with the caveat attached that you can say it was a learning experience and you bounced back with a venture which was ultimately successful.

I think a lot of what people look for in a president has to do with their view of who the president should be. Or stated another way, what qualifies someone to be president? should the smartest person run the country or should it be a shrewd business(wo)man who knows how to delegate with the cabinet selections? Hell it could even be the quintessential "common man" as they theoretically best reflect the reasonable point of view from an American perspective. All varying theories with similarly varying qualifications/backgrounds.
 
TownieDeac said:
you can blame self-hating liberals like chrisL for this kind of rhetoric within the party
Click to expand...

Warren is a Bernie Sanders "lets tax the worldwide income of every US multinational at the US rate to pay for more social programs" drum beater. Much different than Obama.
 
deacphan said:
military experience is a turn off for me. we already do enough to dump all money in to that hole. another president with MORE ties to the military will only make it worse.
Click to expand...

i agree
 
ChrisL68 said:
Warren is a Bernie Sanders "lets tax the worldwide income of every US multinational at the US rate to pay for more social programs" drum beater. Much different than Obama.
Click to expand...

Obama asked for a minimum tax on for corporations' foreign earnings...
 
TownieDeac said:
my apologies
Click to expand...

You should take those back. Reducing rates, closing exemptions and deductions, and imposing a minimum tax on foreign earnings is 1) plenty liberal 2) more specific than anything Warren's issued on corporate taxation and 3) I think chrisl is way wrong about this.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Obama asked for a minimum tax on for corporations' foreign earnings...
Click to expand...

TuffaloDeac10 said:
You should take those back. Reducing rates, closing exemptions and deductions, and imposing a minimum tax on foreign earnings is 1) plenty liberal 2) more specific than anything Warren's issued on corporate taxation and 3) I think chrisl is way wrong about this.
Click to expand...

Depends on what the minimum rate was, since the proposal was offset with the foreign taxes actually paid on the foreign profits. If it was low enough it would be a Republican wet dream and would allow for tax free repatriation from a variety of foreign countries.

A 90% foreign dividends exemption would be equivalent to a 3.5% tax rate on foreign profits, while a 20% minimum tax rate would be a 5% tax on foreign profits from a country with a 15% corporate tax rate, where even a very favorable country like Ireland has a 12.5% tax rate. For a country with a 20% tax rate, it would be 0%.
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
I agree with this and I also agree with the converse: that if you're getting credit for being successful you should also lose some credibility for failing at running businesses albeit with the caveat attached that you can say it was a learning experience and you bounced back with a venture which was ultimately successful.

I think a lot of what people look for in a president has to do with their view of who the president should be. Or stated another way, what qualifies someone to be president? should the smartest person run the country or should it be a shrewd business(wo)man who knows how to delegate with the cabinet selections? Hell it could even be the quintessential "common man" as they theoretically best reflect the reasonable point of view from an American perspective. All varying theories with similarly varying qualifications/backgrounds.
Click to expand...

I think we all should have some sort of basic standard that is higher than "gave a great speech" about something I really care about. A junior Senator with 2 years of experience, no state level government experience, and no business experience falls short of that level for me. I think we should expect more from the people who would be president.

Warren should get through a term or 2 as a Senator and put more substance behind her words before people start talking about her as a presidential candidate. The same should have been said of Barack Obama leading up to the 2008 election.
 
RChildress107 said:
I've never understood why we want our future presidents to spend more time in one of the least popular and least productive groups in the country.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think the time Obama spent in the Senate hurt him. He wasn't a leader of anything there and when he became a leader, he deferred to Reid and Pelosi. By contrast, Warren is leading and is more of a fighter than Obama. I don't think she believes in the legislative process the way Obama did.
 
deacphan said:
military experience is a turn off for me. we already do enough to dump all money in to that hole. another president with MORE ties to the military will only make it worse.
Click to expand...

Milhouse said:
i agree
Click to expand...

Dwight Eisenhower says that isn't always necessarily true.


Maybe an exception to the rule, but just being a military person doesn't mean they will think "give the military more power and money!"
 
deacvision7 said:
Dwight Eisenhower says that isn't always necessarily true.


Maybe an exception to the rule, but just being a military person doesn't mean they will think "give the military more power and money!"
Click to expand...

meh, it's not the 1950s anymore
 
ChrisL68 said:
Depends on what the minimum rate was, since the proposal was offset with the foreign taxes actually paid on the foreign profits. If it was low enough it would be a Republican wet dream and would allow for tax free repatriation from a variety of foreign countries.

A 90% foreign dividends exemption would be equivalent to a 3.5% tax rate on foreign profits, while a 20% minimum tax rate would be a 5% tax on foreign profits from a country with a 15% corporate tax rate, where even a very favorable country like Ireland has a 12.5% tax rate. For a country with a 20% tax rate, it would be 0%.
Click to expand...

No disagreement. It would be broadly similar to how personal income taxes of citizens living abroad work out (except different rates and exemptions and applied to profits not income etc).

I just think it's weird how you know so many details about a corporate tax plan that Warren's never proposed. And that you hate all those details. Of a plan that doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
knowell said:
Exactly why she can win and why she would not be an effective leader.
Click to expand...

What in there did you read that led you to believe she would not be an effective leader? Just trying to spur more conversation. I've gleaned enough from your postings to date to predict what your answer will be (spoiler: it'll likely be inane).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top