Who will be the Democrats' presidential candidate against Trump?

I don't mean in that extreme case McLewis.  Trickle down in the sense that entrepreneurs and small/medium businesses need investment (big portion of which happens through VC/PE/Angel/Family Office) + banks making loans play a huge part in that process.

Wealthy people aren't charities.... nor should they be.  They made money and want to make more.  The incentive it to make them put their money into the economy by offering a good fiscal structure and good returns.  

I actually am more a demand-side person...  create an environment where there's huge demand for investment opportunities by creating the best structure possible for people to invest.  When money competes with money for deals, entrepreneurship thrives (a lot of deals get done at good rates).

When you take money out of the pot and you have less money competing for deals, then entrepreneurship tanks (deal flow goes down and money becomes expensive).

Bigger government by increasing taxes is the absolute worst answer possible and has always failed... almost everywhere except for some small countries.

Just my two cents.

There's a lot of contradicting going on in your statements, but its gonna take a lot of time to deconstruct so answer me this;

And before I ask you these questions, know I'm moderate when it comes to fiscal issues. I'm not really disagreeing with you 100% but;

It's been proven that rich people hoard money into offshore accounts. Why do you think this is okay? This is absolutely not okay, but you advocate turning a blind eye to that matter. The rich exist because of the working class, and the working class exists because of the rich. There's a relationship there, and favoring one side over the other is just you saying "hey, fuck 99% of the population, this 0.1% deserves a bigger piece of the pie because they don't owe you anything".

And if rich people are proven to hoard money into off shore accounts which you have confirmed yourself, that kind of proves that they aren't putting the money back into the economy..? Hence the contradiction. Where are the new jobs? Lol. Most blue collar jobs as an example will be automated in the not-so-near future.

Keep in mind, I do believe in promoting business, but there has to be a balance. Go look at the industrial revolution and how people were living in the rockefeller and carnagie era. That's pure capitalism. IS that what you want? You need a balance between pro business and pro working class.

In my opinion, France is way too far to the left on this issue, and USA is too far to the right on this issue. We need to find a middle ground.

sportsczy wrote:I don't mean in that extreme case McLewis.  Trickle down in the sense that entrepreneurs and small/medium businesses need investment (big portion of which happens through VC/PE/Angel/Family Office) + banks making loans play a huge part in that process.

Wealthy people aren't charities.... nor should they be.  They made money and want to make more.  The incentive it to make them put their money into the economy by offering a good fiscal structure and good returns.  

I actually am more a demand-side person...  create an environment where there's huge demand for investment opportunities by creating the best structure possible for people to invest.  When money competes with money for deals, entrepreneurship thrives (a lot of deals get done at good rates).

When you take money out of the pot and you have less money competing for deals, then entrepreneurship tanks (deal flow goes down and money becomes expensive).

Bigger government by increasing taxes is the absolute worst answer possible and has always failed... almost everywhere except for some small countries.

Just my two cents.

How do you make them put their money into the economy though? What kind of incentive could do that in such a way that everyone wins? It seems to me this isn't really something that the gov't can force the wealthy to do of their own volition without imposing taxes on them, which will just send them scrambling for tax havens.

and sports. I have nothing against capitalism. i'm actually in favor. just pay your damn taxes . the rich are destroying this country by laundering money and not putting it back into the economy

close to every penny that rich people spend goes to other rich people.

"US biggest economic advantage is lower tax rates." haha

lol sports your view on economy is probably the most limited i have ever read.

Taxation is a factor, but nowhere near the be all and end all of business decisions. btw California is the 5th largest economy in the world, i am sure most hate the tax rates but that simply is not enough to move their whole freakin business. I mean it is honestly ridiculous to lower it down the enormous complexity of a business to taxation.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been aces on Twitter since her election. She's very clearly new to being a politician, as evidenced with her misspeaking on a few occasions, but she wields Twitter better than virtually anyone else in elected office right now not named Trump. Will be interesting to see how politically corrupt she becomes as the realities of beltway politics begin to seep into her messages.

Im fiscally moderate by the way. Taxing the rich to hell is not a good idea. It just won't work. Sports is right when they say they will pack up and leave or just not pay. You need a balance. Don't impose something ridiculous like a 10% tax rate or a 75% tax rate (France) and compromise. There is a middle ground that exists.

Agreed. I personally believe I'm paying a fair rate of tax given the bracket I'm in yet others who are in that same tax bracket and making around what I'm making believe they are being taxed to death. To them a fair tax would be probably 0 to 10%, which is ridiculous economically unless you're making less than the minimum wage.

Blue wrote:"US biggest economic advantage is lower tax rates." haha

lol sports your view on economy is probably the most limited i have ever read.

Taxation is a factor, but nowhere near the be all and end all of business decisions. btw California is the 5th largest economy in the world, i am sure most hate the tax rates but that simply is not enough to move their whole freakin business. I mean it is honestly ridiculous to lower it down the enormous complexity of a business to taxation.

They don't move their whole business.  Most keep their sales staff and executive staff (living in CA is attractive for talented people).  However, production, warehousing and distribution all get moved out of state.

I'll give you a tangible example..  most movie and tv production is done outside of CA because of better incentives, including taxes, in other states and countries.  Here's an article on this:

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2018/08/13/georgia-no-longer-no-1-in-feature-film-production.html

Here's an article that discusses the exodus from the Bay Area of CA to other states generally:

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/10/09/bay-area-exodus-headquarters-move.html

Looks like Julian Castro of Texas, HUD Secretary under Obama and former mayor of San Antonio, is forming an exploratory committee for a 2020 run.

https://www.apnews.com/2254f09f088b47c885236b275bddca48

He's an attractive, albeit more establishment option to Beto. Much closer to the middle on the Dem side. I put him in the same orbit as Kamala Harris and Cory Booker in that regard. He's a safe comfortable option for more moderate Dems.

McLewis wrote:Looks like Julian Castro of Texas, HUD Secretary under Obama and former mayor of San Antonio, is forming an exploratory committee for a 2020 run.

https://www.apnews.com/2254f09f088b47c885236b275bddca48

He's an attractive, albeit more establishment option to Beto. Much closer to the middle on the Dem side. I put him in the same orbit as Kamala Harris and Cory Booker in that regard.  He's a safe comfortable option for more moderate Dems.

He also has this unrivaled advantage I mentioned above

Hapless_Hans wrote:
Julián/Joaquín Castro (whose advantage would be that they could share the grueling workload of a campaign, even campaigning in different states at once without anyone noticing)

Personally though, I don't think he has a chance to win the primary. Not enough hype.

Beto is the highest polling democrat right now of the 2020 contenders and I don't think Texas is big enough (despite what they'd have us believe) for 2 Democrats running for President. Though in general, I think that would be great to see given it's Texas. Houston turned blue in midterms and Dallas/Fort Worth is going that way too, joining Austin and San Antonio. Problem is, Texas is still very rural and Republicans rule in rural areas virtually unopposed.

Even if Castro doesn't survive the primary, just having him front and center raises his profile and the hope that Texas may someday be purple instead of just red.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Washington State Governor Jay Inslee have both announced their intentions to run in 2020.

Warren instantly jumps to the top as she's super popular on the left. Her reputation took a bit of a beating over the controversy with her Native American heritage, but I don't think it hurt her all that much. I do think she may be too late to the cycle, especially if Bernie Sanders decides to run again. If he doesn't then she is more likely to inherit his supporters than any other candidate.

Inslee is very much in tune with climate change so that's expected to be the centerpiece of his campaign, I would imagine. He's not a loud politician at all, but hasn't shied away from challenging Trump on twitter and in interviews. Would be a solid establishment choice, but not a spectacular one by any means. He'd be a very safe choice nonetheless.

Not even people in MA want Warren as the nominee

Makes sense, I suppose. She's not well-rounded enough to appeal to all Democrats as it stands right now and maybe that'll change now that she will need to field questions on all issues, not just Trump and economic issues. She's definitely too far to the left for red state Dems and moderate Dems in states like mine. I particularly would like to know how she'd handle the foreign policy quagmire that we're in right now thanks to Trump, especially in the Middle East.

Kamala Harris announced her intention to run for president today

According to 538 she is the dem's most electable candidate and the betting market's favorite to clinch the nomination

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kamala-harris-2020-democratic-primary/

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Kamala Harris announced her intention to run for president today

According to 538 she is the dem's most electable candidate and the betting market's favorite to clinch the nomination

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kamala-harris-2020-democratic-primary/

I watched her appearance on Colbert the other week, and while she definitively looks the part (she looks and acts like incarnated ideal image of all last decades TV shows' and movies' US president), I have to say I found her messaging and her story-telling rather underwhelming and stale, what with the children's book telling how superheroes are all around us etc pp.
I'm not sure she's going to turn out quite such a talented politician as she seems at first glance. My guess would be that her star will fade during the campaign, a bit.

Just for clarification, the above, and the following comments are merely relevant to the 'rat race', 'competition' aspect of the upcoming nomination and election. I'm not talking about policy substance here, I'm talking about the more superficial qualities of the candidates as candidates.

Anyway, we can now see that many heavy-hitters have entered the race early this time around (I seem to remember in previous campaigns the big names only entered the race towards summer/fall), and quite a few I mentioned in the opening post.
Most of all, a strong lineup of women has established, with Warren, Harris and Gillibrand already officially running.

I like all of the three, and each of them would of course make a terrific president, and I honestly dearly hope one of them becomes nominee, and president.
IMO the nomination of a woman is a MUST for the Democrats at this moment in time.
There's as strong a female cast of candidates as ever before, and the leading male candidates are white old grandpas, Biden and Sanders. I would be strongly opposed to the Democrats nominating them, if I was them.

Now, Warren, I like her very much and she's got great credentials as a lifelong fighter for everyday Americans.
However, she doesn't seem a slick enough a candidate to make it in the perfidious jungle that is the US political campaign media landscape, she's already quite old and her behaviour is somewhat stiff.
Her campaign launch video was bizarre and cringey, what with the beer in the kitchen ?!?!, and we already know what a campaign vs Trump would look like: it would ONLY be Pocahontas, Pocahontas, Pocahontas, Pocahontas, Pocahontas, Pocahontas, all day long, and I'm afraid she didn't help herself with that unbelievably ill-advised genetics test stuff.

Gillibrand, my personal favourite, is also running. She's not a perfect public speech-maker either, it seems to me, but she seems to me pretty great in debates. She comes across to me cogent, purposeful, serious, engaged and very relateable when talking about issues and I think she would be a perfect candidate. Not sure what bodies she has in her closet though.

Also announced has Julien Castro, the more prominent of the Castro twins, he's a good candidate but I think he'll turn out too leightweight to be a serious contender.

Biggest competitor for the women trinity probably is Corey Booker, thouh IIRC Eric Holder was also planning to run, no? He might be someone to be taken seriously, though I'm not such a fan of his.

So Warren is proposing a tax on the wealthy...  socialism.  If it's between her and Trump, I vote for Trump.  Granted, Warren is a below par candidate in every way.  So I don't expect her to make it very far.

But generally speaking, any socialist concepts are absolute non starters for me and the dems will lose for absolute certain if they go down this road.  They may win their own party's race... they will, however, lose the presidential race.

Stop this nonsense.

Cut the tax breaks that help the wealthier segment of the population... sure.  There are some out there that are outrageous.  However, do not propose a direct wealth tax.  There's more than one way to skin this cat.  Don't choose the wrong method.

Dude.. taxing the wealthy is not socialism

socialism would involve collectivizing the means of production in some kind of form, not just taxing those who profit highly from the work of others

let's just make some minimal effort to get things right, when discussing important things, shall we?

Hapless_Hans wrote:Dude.. taxing the wealthy is not socialism

socialism would involve collectivizing the means of production  in some kind of form, not just taxing those who profit highly from the work of others

let's just make some minimal effort to get things right, when discussing important things, shall we?

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."  That's the dictionary definition of socialism.  Warren is well known for advocating socialist policies.

That's exactly that this is about.  Have government increase its role in regulating, distributing, etc. by taking money out of private ownership through taxation and put the extra resources into the public system for expenditure.  Bigger government means the increased collectivization of the means of production, distribution and production.  Hell no.  They can't tie their own shoelaces at this point.  Let our federal government prove they can properly manage the current enormous resources at their disposal before giving them more.  

The problem isn't that there isn't money to fund all the necessary projects in the US.  The issue is that the government is wasteful and generally broken... so the resources are spent as inefficiently as you can possibly imagine.  

Any politician that advocates increasing the resources of the US government is a complete non-starter for me.  First, show me that you can manage what you already have.  End of.

Billions of dollars are funneled into useless projects designed to line the pockets of the lobby groups that fund political campaigns for both parties.  10s of billions.  There's exponentially more money there to clean up then this stupid "tax the wealthy" scheme.  Same thing happened in France.  They tried to tax the upper echelon... but it was just something to feed the populist sentiment without solving the underlying problems causing budgetary issues.

I would read this to understand what Warren is all about:  https://fee.org/articles/elizabeth-warren-s-new-deal-is-closer-to-national-socialism-than-democratic-socialism/

She can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.  Her (and Sanders') type of thinking are far bigger threats than Trump's buffoonery could ever be.

i don't see why we need to choose between the two.

I don't care which party the person comes from... but I will vote for the most moderate candidate.  But if the choice ever came down to Sanders or Warren as opposed to Trump... I take Trump every day of the week (and it would kill me to have to vote for him).

The bigger issue is that voters are left to vote for the "less shitty" option as opposed to a good one. I still have faith the dems will bring forth a proper person to represent. I have to.

sportsczy wrote:She can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.  Her (and Sanders') type of thinking are far bigger threats than Trump's buffoonery could ever be.

lmao, seriously? The same Trump that pisses off allies to accommodate the likes of Russia? The same Trump that threatened North Korea with "I have a bigger button"? The same Trump that is putting national security at risk by closing the government for the most amount of time ever?

I'm not fan of the "progressive socialist" economic policies, but there is no way that a Sanders/Warren presidency would be a bigger threat than Trump to anything.

So if you don't like Sanders or Warren, Sports, what is your opinion on a potential run of a far more centrist and business friendly candidate like Howard Schultz, who is thinking of running as an Independent?

Sportsczy wants a candidate that protects the status quo. Basically a Hilary, but with a better personality and likability.

There are huge problems in the United States concerning our domestic and foreign policies. Those are issues he doesn't know about or care about. So a continuation of Obama policies he would welcome.

And that is the issue with the dems, it is basically the less republican party. New voices are trying to challenge that.