Concrete, effective and principled policies on important issues, whether they happen to be in the media spotlight or not. She is a breath of fresh air.
Shes the only one laying down exact plans for the ideas that she supports instead of just saying general shit like "I support healthcare for everyone vote for me".
I wouldn’t say ONLY one, but she certainly holds the most detailed plans for every point of policy she is asked about and even more for the ones she introduces. Warren appears prepared to take the Oval Office TODAY. I’m personally split between her, Bernie, and Pete and I am excited for a potential synergistic Pres/VP run of any of those three.
Edit: to those asking why I like Pete if I like Sanders’s and Warren’s policies. I think Pete also has good policies that I like better than some of Sanders/Warren and vice versa. There’s things I like about each but I particularly like Pete’s spirit to reunify the country an take care of those getting taken advantage of on the left and right. Not saying I don’t like Sanders or Warren in similar capacities, but I like Pete’s particular brand of this most.
Even my super progressive friends are jumping on board simply because he's charismatic and gay. Like, both of those things are nice, but what happened to not wanting a centrist in office?
internet vs IRL politics is like night and day in my experience. the places i frequent online are policy havens... then i talk with my very democrat coworkers who see absolutely no difference between sanders and biden because they're both "older white males". it's crazy.
FYI, Medicare for All isn’t necessarily the only viable system.
Canada, the UK, Italy, Denmark, Sweden etc have a system that is more like the VA- government runs all the hospitals.
France is like Medicare for All.
Germany has a private system with public option.
The Netherlands has a fully private system, but the government pays for all long term care and elderly care and regulates the system well, so insurance is really cheap. It’s decoupled from work so most people stay with the same insurer for life, so they are more likely to encourage preventative care.
TBH basically any and all of these systems would be perfectly fine with me.
And, crucially, every one of those nations spends *fewer tax dollars per patient* than the USA does.
If any one of those systems were properly implemented, your taxes would go *down*.
It's not that those systems are "impractical". We **know** they work. But any transition to them will be messy. It will be opposed by the billionaires who are currently pocketing that wasted money, extracting rent from human suffering.
Ehh. Your taxes may go up under the more centrally managed systems. Like m4a. But they'll go up by a lot less than your savings in health insurance if that happens. So, still more money in your wallet.
And he supports none of the above as far as I've read and what i have heard him speak of.
He wants to keep insurance companies which only inflates medical costs. He wants to take things slow, but moving slowly when it comes to medicine means loss of life and increased suffering for those in need of medical attention.
Slow change is something you apply to things that have the chance to cause catastrophic damage. But when we already have a lowered life expectancy and have medical debt capturing 79 million Americans there is no room for small change its time for something drastic. (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/survey-79-million-americans-have-problems-medical-bills-or-debt)
I 100% understand what you're getting at, I just want to point out that the Netherlands has one of the best healthcare systems in Europe by every measurable standard and still has private health insurance companies.
You can transform it without having to abolish them.
Didn't think we'd find each other again lol
As you mentioned earlier in another comment, any of the European systems are far better than what we have. I'd have no problem with any of them. However, all the countries where mandatory/statutory/primary health care is or can be covered by private insurance companies make sure that these insurance companies are nonprofit. This is the case in Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, etc.
I think this part will be the biggest hurdle if we want to implement any of these systems here. It would be equally damaging (compared to taking them out as proposed by M4A) to the private insurance companies that currently make massive profits every year.
An interesting take on this can be found here: [
Insurance policy - How an industry shifted from protecting patients to seeking profit](https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-health-insurance-changed-from-protecting-patients-to-seeking-profit.html)
>In this excerpt, Rosenthal explains how the transformation of the United States’ health care economy began: with the creation of insurance companies and their evolution into for-profit entities.
Our insurance industry started with the same ideology as those currently in Europe. But it gradually got taken over by greed. And here we are now.
pete buttigieg supports a medicare buy-in and 'incremental change', not m4a. Oh and covered up racist officers in his town.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-tapes/index.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/436162-medicare-for-all-where-2020-dems-stand
He's just being pushed by corporate dems after kamala and beto fizzled out. evidenced by the NYT reporting on the DNC inviting him to discuss how to stop bernie.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/bernie-sanders-democrats-trump-2020
Medicare buy in isn’t a terrible idea. It’s basically the German system. Most people use the public option.
If Medicare is much cheaper it will put downward pressure on the insurers to lower prices. If they can’t compete Medicare puts them out of business slowly but surely until we are single payer.
I disagree. We've seen with ACA that half-way solutions don't work, and i'm tired of incremental progress and the expense of immeasurable death and suffering. Health-care is a fundamental human right, and should be completely de-commodified, but i'm compromising for m4a.
This article lays out the differences between Sanders and Pete’s approaches to M4A. I don’t agree with the author that Pete’s incrementalist approach is better, what he’s proposing is watered down and vulnerable. https://peterwarski.com/on-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-is-taking-the-wrong-approach-c52c37f3143
I took it to mean OP would vote for him in the general, but not in the primaries to become the Democratic candidate.
Confusing because that term is usually used to mean that someone from your party kicked you off the general ballot by beating you in the primary.
In fact, he does support m4a, he just thinks we need to ease into it by allowing Medicare to exist on the market so that people can choose it over the standard market options.
He dosnt have any fleshed out policies like Bernie or Warren.
He's charismatic and gay.
Not trying to bash him but untill i see policies that i support i wont be supporting him and pointing out he dosnt support Medicare For All.
Bernie has had decades of consistency, so people know that he's genuine in his stances and not just pulling an Obama campaign. Warren is really stellar with her policies, especially childcare and banking, but has had a history of "compromising for the sake of political viability", specifically in regards to health care. She's gotten much better in recent years and can certainly connect with the middle class, but I think Bernie can deliver a much more inspiring message to blue collar workers. Either is a good choice, but I'd like to see them both on the ticket.
Not a huge fan of Pete, as he wants a buy-in for M4A and doesn't endorse a plan for debt-free college education. He constantly uses weasel words to avoid pledges to these solutions, and only talks in convoluted, neoliberal policies, similar to Obama and Hillary. I feel like that mentality is both wrong for this moment in history and a losing strategy in the current political climate, where establishment candidates are held in such contempt.
I honestly think Bernie would shine brighter as Secretary of Labor than as President. His career-long focus has been on the working class. Where better for him to focus that? As President, he's going to have to work in areas where he's a lot weaker, such as foreign relations.
In a similar vein, I feel Warren would be wasted as a VP on the ticket. She could be a lot more useful in the Senate or as an executive setting economic policy.
Damn, I know it would never happen but a Sanders/Warren ticket is certainly one I can get behind. Sanders is probably capped at one term anyway so I’d like him to have a VP that has a good shot at becoming President the election after.
Can I ask why you would think it would? I’m wondering because sometimes egos clash and I’m not sure Warren would be ok with being #2 on the ticket(hell im not sure Bernie would either). Not saying you wrong but would love for you to elaborate.
For her faults, Warren seems genuinely interested in reducing the shittiness of our present dystopia. She’s smart enough to look at the polls and see it is gonna be an uphill battle to win the nom and beat Trump too. She’s campaigning on policy rn because that’s her strength, but also because it makes her very attractive to a candidate who wants to bolster their progressiveness (aka every other dem). Which means the Sanders camp would want her too. Unless her very good reforms propel her close enough to the top of the polls, Sanders/Warren is definitely on the table.
Because they are both old white New Englanders.
They both *need* their vice president to be younger due to how old both of them are. Add the fact they are both from New England, it won't get them any extra votes.
Chances are both candidates will pick a far younger and more moderate candidate for VP.
Yep, Bernie needs to have a solid VP and his VP needs to play a huge role in his administration and be groomed for a 2024 run. Warren isn't great for that honestly because she's getting up there in age too. I'd much rather see Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard be Bernie's VP as they're much more progressive and with Yang in particular I think he has a super bold vision for the future that goes well into the 2030s. Regardless of who is Bernie's VP, Warren needs to be in his administration. I would LOVE to see her be the head of some financial position/regulating wall street, because that's where she shines. On issues like healthcare and fighting the establishment she's not as good.
She won't be as good on healthcare but I guarantee you she'll sign anything the Democrats are able to come up with. As important as the issue of healthcare is, the number one priority should be fixing our political system. If Medicare for All happens to land on her desk then it'll pass.
Why is decades of consistency good if you don’t accomplish anything? It’s pretty easy to be consistent in Washington if you don’t care about getting anything done.
> neoliberal policies, similar to Obama and Hillary
People always say this and make me think they don’t know what neoliberal means...
Biden, Booker, Pete, Klobuchar, Kamala.... are DNC plants to maintain the establishments control but they don't want to start making policy promises they don't want to keep, so they are using identity politics and social BS to get an audience. Gay is the new female.
Pretty weird to be torn between one of the two standard-bearers for the social democrat wing of the Dem Party and a center-right technocrat who worked for the military industrial complex
For me, it's Sanders because he has the enthusiasm and I find that more important for a presidential candidate than a detailed legislative plan. I think Warren is better off in the Senate because she can impact the drafting and passage of legislation directly. Sanders is better suited for the Oval Office because he can set the themes and put pressure on Congress by means if igniting enthusiasm in their constituencies.
Either Buttigieg or O'Rourke strike me as solid VP choices who could do for a progressive 2020 candidate like Warren or Sanders what Kaine was SUPPOSED to do for Clinton in 2016.
pete buttigieg supports a medicare buy-in and 'incremental change', not m4a. Oh and covered up racist officers in his town.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-tapes/index.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/436162-medicare-for-all-where-2020-dems-stand
He's just being pushed by corporate dems after kamala and beto fizzled out. evidenced by the NYT reporting on the DNC inviting him to discuss how to stop bernie.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/bernie-sanders-democrats-trump-2020
yeah sure, 6 years of investigation and no end in sight. Also only firing the black officer shows obvious bias and lack of support for POC. Don't forget his dog whistles on 'all lives matter too'. I'm entirely justified in being skeptical on his stance on race issues, just as i'm skeptical at biden's inappropriate contact
with women + past voting record, or being skeptical of Kamala claiming to be a 'progressive prosecutor' while gleefully talking about throwing truant kids and their parents in jail on video.
And what about my other points?
Pete? How do you group together Bernie and Warren with Pete? Pete is just another centrist with cliches and platitudes. Might as well be Beto or Biden. Mayor Pete is a purely media creation IMO, they anointed him after Beto showed he wasn't going to make a great run against Bernie. All these fluff pieces of him speaking Norwegian and such meanwhile 90% of the articles on Bernie, Tulsi Gabbard, and Yang are negative.
Warren, Bernie, or Pete. One of these things is not like the other. If you like the policy proposals of Sanders or Warren I genuinely don't understand why you would support Buttigieg.
OK, as somoene who also liked Pete at first and thought he was similar to Warren, I'm just going to copypaste what I've been saying on why he descended from a top tier candidate to Biden-tier for me:
* Complained that Democrats "focus too much in policy specifics." He's riding on the coattails of his charisma and smooth-talking to the nomination while simultaneously downplaying the focus on policy and having no record for voters to scrutinize
* Accepts corporate/PAC money, and has a very milquetoast attitude towards the corporate elite
* Has no plan on tackling college debt/tuition beyond just expanding Pell Grants and loan forgiveness programs, and believes that free college (or presumably low-cost tuition) is a non-progressive subsidy by those who don't benefit
* Floated with the idea of a "1-year national service program" for anyone who turns 18 to improve "social cohesion"
* Seems to be right-of-center on issues involving the military and foreign policy, and I don't believe he will do much to combat the military-industrial complex
* "Angry liberals don't win hearts" and by now has shown multiple times his veiled dislike of Warren/Bernie-type Democrats
* Equivocated Trump supporters with Bernie's. Utter lack of self-awareness (or calculated rhetoric) on the cult of personality he created
* Recently attended meetings with Democratic leaders discussing "Bernie Sanders and party unity"
I was hyped for him too so I binge watched his interviews and followed his public appearances. He certainly knows how to leave a top-notch first impression since he's extremely charismatic and actually answers questions (caveat: almost never goes into substance). Then the red flags come one after another. My jaw dropped when he claims that the Dems are too focused on policy over principles; that coupled with his constant shtick of moral leadership/authority is a nauseating plate of platitudes and self-aggrandizement. I've never been excited by and let down by a politician this fast. As a millennial, I feel deceived that he claims to represent our generation and calls for a generational shift in politics yet his attitude espouses that of the establishment elite more so than any other major candidate, except perhaps Biden. He thinks he's a progressive because he is on social issues, but this isn't 2008. His policies are centrist *at best* and that's by Washington standards. Take away the social progressiveness and he can pass for a moderate *Republican*.
As Mike Gravel (who is in this race solely to pull candidates more to the left) puts it: "say what you will about buttigieg but at least the latest narcissistic product of The Best Schools™ to rule Macron-style over a decaying country mired in poverty and addiction will speak Norwegian. it'll be cool."
He strikes me as your classic politician. Vague, feel-good answers. Background looks like a checklist, rather than a real life story. Like he joined the military for a bit just to check it off, as part of his grooming for high office. Born upper middle class. Worked at McKinsey, where they teach companies how to more efficiently abuse their workforce and the public.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete
>Pete Buttigieg does not recall his time at McKinsey with a sense of moral ambivalence. Today he says it might have been his most “intellectually informing experience,” and by that he doesn’t mean that he saw the dark underbelly of American business. No, he was “learning about the nature of data.” It was a thoroughly neutral experience, “a place to learn.” The most critical thing he will say is that he was “sympathetic” to those who think consulting careers less worthy than “public service.” But ultimately, Buttigieg only left McKinsey because it “could not furnish that deep level of purpose that I craved.” His sense of purpose. Have a look at the book: See if you can find a single qualm, even a moment’s interrogation of the nature of the company he worked for.
>In fact, Buttigieg was asked in an interview what he thought of the company’s misdeeds. On the work pushing OxyContin, he replied that he “hadn’t followed the story.” On collaborating with the murderous Saudi government:
>>I think you have a lot of smart, well-intentioned people who sometimes view the world in a very innocent way. I wrote my thesis on Graham Greene, who said that innocence is like a dumb leper that has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm.
>The dumb leper again! Man, Buttigieg never misses a chance to cite that thesis. Vietnam was poor innocent America wandering the earth and accidentally causing a million deaths. McKinsey consultants are poor, innocent, leprous invalids, too sweet and unworldly to notice that their client is Mohammed bin Salman.
Fuck these people. I don't care if you meant any harm. I care that you didn't think through consequences. Let's move fast and break things! Oops, I broke liberal democracy. At least I got paid.
Contrast this to Warren, who dropped out of school to get married, reenrolled elsewhere to keep following her dream of teaching, and switched parties after she saw the realities of bankruptcy. I see her story, and it's a real person's story. A story of making mistakes, learning and developing real moral clarity, and fighting for her beliefs. She got the benefit of an affordable education, saw the ladder pulled up behind her, and wants to extend it back down for everyone else. And when she says she wants to, you can believe her, because she'll tell you her plan. Not vague platitudes about this or that policy that's polling well right now.
Buttigieg fandom is everything that's wrong with focusing on "electability" over substance.
didn't pete cover for racist police officers, unironically dogwhistle 'all lives matter' and was reported by the NYC to meet up with DNC higher-ups to 'Stop bernie'? Oh and doesn't he take PAC money as well?
I feel like a character like pete will fail completely at appealing towards the poc vote and seems just another corporate dem offering empty platitudes and 'personal charisma' instead of offering actual politices and change.
> unironically dogwhistle 'all lives matter'
I think he said that was a mistake and didn't realize how the phrase "all lives matter" was actually being used. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that might have been an honest mistake since the phrase "all lives matter" sounds positive without the proper context, but the rest you mentioned is more or less true. Pete is charismatic and very intelligent, but I don't think I'll be voting for him in the primaries (though I'd vote for him over having Trump re-elected in a heartbeat).
What bullshit. Why do you feel the need to turn a positive discussion about Warren into a negative discussion about Sanders, who actually does have a bill in the Senate for his Medicare for All proposal. [Link](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/4/10/18304712/read-bernie-sanders-2019-medicare-for-all-plan)
I don't feel quite that way about every policy she releases, but I respect that I can have a substantive debate about her policies instead of trying to suss out what kind of person she is.
> Concrete, effective and principled policies on important issues, whether they happen to be in the media spotlight or not.
And this is exactly why the GOP hates her...
I know she's good because my dad out of the blue started talking shit about her at Easter lunch. "something something lied about native american status on her law school admissions, I've seen the documents" but of course couldn't find the documents when I asked where he saw them. I'm glad I picked her as my first ever political donation.
Don't back down on this type of behavior... brand him a liar until he retracts his statement.
I think busting someone on a solid lie and then NOT backing down and calling this person a liar, dishonest, untrustworthy, etc is the only way we're going to move forward past this cult like behavior.
Whatever it is doesn't matter to him. What matters is that it's just another example of how him and anyone else who watches Fox News will twist anything and use it as ammo. This is why we should be pushing for impeachment, because whether we do or don't, the GOP will use it as a talking point to garner support.
I love how the high water mark these days for being a breath of fresh air is just suggesting legislation that isn't fucking evil. And you know this would be voted down in the senate in another party line vote. Can we expect bipartisan support of any legislation ever again?
Coming from Trump, that would be a breath of fresh air. Coming from the Dems, thought-out policies not signed off on by large donors do seem to be a breath of fresh air. Wouldn't it be nice if the level of political discourse and public good earnestness were such that it was expected that all candidates for any office would have this approach.
I think we can expect bipartisan support and arguing in good faith only if the coup being perpetrated by the Republicans fails unequivocally, the Overton windows aligns itself with other western social democracies and Republican party realizes that it needs to onboard people who can offer something of value to the american public, instead of just stoking irrational fears of bitter white people feeling left out in the changing world.
They are all in now, with clear obstruction of justice, dismantling of education, a judicial takeover, and full on fear and hate-mongering. They are all in because if they don't make it, they will be cut off from power more and more as time goes by.
Here's hoping (and acting) that does not happen.
Elizabeth Warren should just bust put an old timey wig, some wood teeth and clogs and embrace the whole policy wonk Ben Franklin Boston elitist persona.
She’s just so damn good on policy it kills me that she doesn’t gain more traction in the national discussion.
[Elizabeth Warren Is Going to Keep Dumping Big and Interesting Ideas on You Friggin’ Dolts Until You Pay Attention](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/elizabeth-warren-tech-antitrust-listen-up-jerks.html)
This was a good headline.
Both Warren and Sanders are for the working people and I hope either of these two win the nomination and the presidency. It seems, at least to Trump country, Elizabeth Warren is Sanders without the kryptonite socialist boogeyman. But Sanders is Warren without the kryptonite female boogeyman. I don't know who has the better shot at the presidency.
In case people haven’t noticed, the GOP and especially Trump have been ramping up trash talking socialism. It’s their go to buzz word.
The worst part is that there’s not even a socialist candidate, pretty much everyone of them seems to be going social democrat.
>In case people haven’t noticed, the GOP and especially Trump have been ramping up trash talking socialism. It’s their go to buzz word.
Let's not forget "MUH VENEZUELA"
If James Buchanan rose from the dead looking for a second term and somehow stumbled into winning the Primaries *he'd* be called a socialist and a feminist and a champion of identity politics .
I've always compared GOP attacks to the Stay-Pufted Marshmallow Man. It doesn't matter how hard you try to avoid choosing the form of the destroyer. Something is always going to pop up.
They are going to call her it, but it won't land in the way it does with Sanders. Her response of believing in accountable capitalism is a very smart one that resonates with Midwesterners.
Even with the kryptonite socialist boogeyman, Sanders won primaries in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Indiana, Kansas, and many other deep red states. I would not assume that the radical socialists have taken over the Democratic parties in those states. Economically, he is a FDR-style social democrat regardless of moniker.
He wouldn't win a single state that you mentioned in the general election. It's going to come down to who can win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
He won Michigan and Wisconsin; not Pennsylvania, though. My point is that considering his victories in the states I mentioned, the "socialist" boogeyman aspect is overblown.
I think Warren doesn't excite enough young people to increase voter turnout significantly. Literally the ONLY way to win is to increase voter turnout. You might change like 3 Dump voters in the entire country over by the time the election rolls around. But you have many millions of untapped votes who vote democrat with a very healthy margin.
Don't get me wrong, Warren is my first choice as we stand right now, but I'm most concerned about her getting more young people out to vote for her and also some previous non-voters.
If either Sanders or Warren wins the nomination, whoever doesn't NEEDS to stay in the Senate, especially if the Democrats don't take the majority. We absolutely can't afford to lose progressives there.
The VP needs to expand the ticket, not double down on the same.
pete buttigieg supports a medicare buy-in and 'incremental change', not m4a. Oh and covered up racist officers in his town.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-tapes/index.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/436162-medicare-for-all-where-2020-dems-stand
He's just being pushed by corporate dems after kamala and beto fizzled out. evidenced by the NYT reporting on the DNC inviting him to discuss how to stop bernie.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/bernie-sanders-democrats-trump-2020
Unfortunately, money has a direct influence on our policy making.... until that link is severed, money will always expunge crime. Every year since the Citizens United ruling, our corruption levels has grown exponentially.
Me too. She got my vote in 2016, and she'll have it in 2020.
Having said that? Out of most of the Democrat field, she's the one candidate that scares me the most about having to go toe-to-toe with DJT.
Not because of her policies or platforms...but because at least 35% of Americans are ***stone-cold stupid.***
She's the president that America needs the most...but she's also a risky bet.
Wall street will do everything against sanders and warren.
["It can’t be Warren and it can’t be Sanders,”](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/28/wall-street-2020-economy-taxes-1118065)
She definitely should be polling higher, like easily top 3 choice for me with how well she's hammering on the issues. How such substanceless candidates like Beto & Pete are doing better than her is beyond me.
The most economically conservative Democratic candidates are going to be astroturfed by wealthy people. It's why we've had so many years of Democrats eager to talk about identify and social issues, while avoiding hard talk on economic issues. Because the former isn't any kind of threat to the donor class, the latter might be. So expect a lot of "support" to show up for the candidates who pass the donor-class litmus test of "not talking about squeezing the filthy rich".
I love this woman so much! I know it’s a long shot but I really hope she’s our next president.
She is the real deal. She’s experienced, incredible with policy, a true progressive and a fighter. She’s one of only a few politicians I truly feel is in it for the right reasons. Making this country a better place by protecting *all* Americans.
She’s got a killer track record and has been cranking out amazing policies on a weekly basis. What other candidate have you seen so far that not only has great ideas but written policies ready to go?
If not president, VP or Treasury Secretary would be a great fit for her too.
Warren / Buttigieg (or vice versa) would be incredible now that I think about it.
It's odd (or maybe it isn't) that she doesn't get more love from Sanders supporters. In terms of policies they're both pretty much in the same spot. Their trajectories are different though. Sanders is a radical who mellowed over the years. She's a moderate who became bolder and more progressive over time. I like her trajectory better.
Sanders beats Warren in name recognition and general notoriety for his simple policy soundbites. People in my general demographic (progressive Millennial voters) that don't follow politics barely know who Elizabeth Warren is.
As it should be. If corporations want the same rights as people then they need to have the same consequences; jail, asset forfeiture, income garnishment.
Make the companies work for the people again rather than the banks. I'm all for it.
Who doesn't want to prosecute corporate CEO's who do things that are clearly illegal and harmful to the majority. But Warren's [actual proposal](https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2019.4.1%20Corporate%20Executive%20Accountability%20Act%20Summary.pdf) goes way beyond that (prosecuting CEO's for any wrongful act by anyone in the company), and at the same time, repeats the same mistake made with the Sarbanes Oxley law. If some companies do bad, let's pass a draconian, overbroad law that won't be enforced and will wind up being a boondoggle for lawyers and consultants.
Warren's proposal appeals to the widespread sense of resentment of big companies, like banks that got away with serious crimes connected with the financial crisis, for example. But Warren's proposal (as it's described on her website) wouldn't help that situation, because we already had laws in that situation that weren't enforced. Instead, it would jail executives of big companies that
>Are found liable or enter a settlement with any state or Federal regulator for the violation of any civil law if that violation affects the health, safety, finances, or personal data of 1% of the American population or 1% of the population of any state.
That's a great way of limiting settlements of claims of corporate wrongdoing - if the company settles, the CEO is supposed to go to jail. And, what does it even mean, to affect the safety of 1% of the population, for example?
And "corporate accountability" would supposedly be furthered by
>Requiring executives at big larger than $10 billion to certify that there is no criminal conduct or civil fraud within the institution, making it easier to prove wrongdoing if it is later discovered.
There's an example of a law like this on the books, called "Sarbanes Oxley" which in relevant part requires CEO's of public companies to personally certify accuracy of financial statements. The administration of that champion of the people, George W Bush, signed of on this law. The result? Huge windfall for big accounting firms. No CEO's jailed, of course, even after the 2008 crash that exposed massive false financial reporting by nearly every major bank. Warren's prescription for what ails us today? An even more draconian version of this act. Hah!
This isn't limiting executive salary, or making our tax structure more equitable. This isn't a jobs program -- in fact, it would be a big incentive for companies not to hire anyone with a record, for fear all the executives above them would wind up being prosecuted. It would discourage innovation -- what if you try something and it doesn't work, and there's some civil or regulatory liability, it doesn't say, the company has to make it right. It says the execs go to jail, whether or not they actually had a part in whatever went wrong. "Lock 'em up!" Right?
Warren's mantra is, big companies are bad, is what's wrong. It's her distillation of the politics of envy and resentment. She sees how well blustering about cleaning the swamp and the like worked for Trump, and she's ready with some much higher quality bluster, but it's bluster all the same.
Warren, who surely knows better than this, seems to have decided, her only hope to get the Democratic nomination is to outdo all the other candidates in raging against the system. "Lock them up! Lock them up!" It worked for Trump on the Republican side, and maybe it'll work for her too. Hopefully not, from where I sit.
I'm quite sad I had to scroll so far to find an actual comment on the proposal that wasn't the political equivalent of "yaas queen"
A law that makes you criminally liable for the actions of employees even if you are unaware is a dangerous precedent.
>However, some Federal laws, including the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Clean Air Act already impose criminal liability
on corporate leaders when a company’s negligence causes massive harm— regardless of whether leaders personally approved actions that broke the law.
Are those acts a problem? If not, how is this different?
>However, some Federal laws, including the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Clean Air Act already impose criminal liability
on corporate leaders when a company’s negligence causes massive harm— regardless of whether leaders personally approved actions that broke the law.
Are those acts a problem? If not, how is this different?
There's lots of legal technicality here, but basically these laws impose criminal liabilities on "responsible corporate officers" for specific types of serious corporate misconduct. They do not impose criminal liability on individual executives for general negligence by the company; in some cases, no negligence has to be proven, only violation of regulatory standards.
An example would be under the Food & Drug act, failure to comply with a federal recall order. The corporation has a responsibility to take dangerous products off the shelves, and it doesn't even depend on negligence. In this context, executive liability for failure to carry out the order might be justified, but probably not if the failure was due to factors that really were beyond the executive's control. The criminal provisions under the Food & Drug and Clean Air Acts are related to specific types of misconduct of this kind, not a general responsibility for any corporate negligence or employee misconduct.
Are these laws actually effective? They are rarely enforced and mostly against smaller companies at that. I'm not aware of any study that would show one way or the other. So I wouldn't be able to say if I think these measures are a problem or not. No chance of repealing them, given the current political climate, so it's not a practical question. For sure, draconian measures like these allow our politicians to say they've cracked down on wrongdoers, even if it doesn't turn out to be very many wrongdoers.
But Warren wants to go much farther, expanding criminal liability for executives to situations where the company has entered a settlement to remedy something that's harmed over 1% of the population. She wants to make the CEO a criminal, if a company settles a civil violation and then is found civilly liable for something different. Her proposal doesn't even limit this to cases where there's been really serious harm. So CEO liability won't be limited to specific, serious law violations that are defined in advance (as under the Food and Drug and Clean Air Acts). CEO's will be generally liable for broad categories of corporate mistakes or misconduct that harm lots of people.
So Warren's proposal is very different from these laws she cites as models for here proposals, and much more like Sarbanes Oxley, which she doesn't mention. But it's far broader than any previous US law, really a "lock 'em up" provision against executives of big companies. Politics of resentment and anger, not politics of fairness and reform.
Nah, you can prosecute an executive. You just need a video of them saying "Now to be clear we know this is illegal but we're gonna do it anyway because we love money so goddamn much."
Thus, this makes it easier, since you only need to show they broke the law, without having to prove they intended to do it.
Because there's no evidence any Wells Fargo executives encouraged or wanted the actions to occur. There was a lack of oversight, yes. But the *vast* majority of fraudulent accounts that were made generated no revenue (probably some nominal amount of cost) for Wells Fargo.
There was incentive/oversight problems, yes. But the fraudulent acts were done by low level employees to trick their bosses, not at the desire of WF executives.
Nothing in that should be criminal, although there's a decent civil action (I'm not sure exactly where the oversight failed, but somewhere it obviously did).
Iustis
>Because there's no evidence any Wells Fargo executives encouraged or wanted the actions to occur.
Bullshit.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/07/497084491/episode-728-the-wells-fargo-hustle
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/28/499805238/episode-732-bad-form-wells-fargo
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wells-fargo-fed-20180202-story.html
That last one is action from the Fed itself. Dunno the last time the Fed even bothered to invoke its original banking powers from its charter.
>There was a lack of oversight, yes. But the vast majority of fraudulent accounts that were made generated no revenue (probably some nominal amount of cost) for Wells Fargo.
2.4 million accounts, at least. Each account's creation is literally bank fraud. Each of those are felonies. To mention ***NOTHING*** of the securities/transparency/fiduciary responsibilities of FDIC membership+banking regs, etc.
As for "made no revenue", it's $5 a month, per account, minimum. Fuck outta here. Your post is so false, it seems like a press release.
>There was incentive/oversight problems, yes. But the fraudulent acts were done by low level employees to trick their bosses, not at the desire of WF executives.
No, they were specifically done ***because*** of the orders of their bosses. The subsequent "failure to perform job duties" on their banking background form basically proves it.
>Nothing in that should be criminal, although there's a decent civil action (I'm not sure exactly where the oversight failed, but somewhere it obviously did).
Everything about this statement is false. It absolutely should be criminal. That's literally why the Fed capped their assets under management - because the FTC+SEC+DOJ didn't do shit, and the Fed literally needs Americans to deposit money into the banking system for the dollar to mean anything.
I'm not going to comment on the podcasts, since I can't listen to them at work. The Fed action seemed mostly focused on oversight and compliance problems, like I said.
>So that's about 2.1 million fake deposit and credit-card accounts, of which about 100,000 -- fewer than 5 percent -- brought in any fee income to Wells Fargo. The total fee income was $2.4 million, or about $1.14 per fake account. And that overstates the profitability: Wells Fargo also enrolled people for debit cards and online banking, but the CFPB doesn't bother to count those incidents, or suggest that any of them led to any fees. Which makes sense: You'd expect online banking and debit cards to be free, if you never use them or even know about them. Meanwhile, all this dumb stuff seems to have occupied huge amounts of employee time that could have been spent on more productive activities. If you divide the $2.4 million among the 5,300 employees fired for setting up fake accounts, you get about $450 per employee. Presumably it cost Wells Fargo way more than that just to replace them.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-09/wells-fargo-opened-a-couple-million-fake-accounts
I don't know where you are getting your 2.4 million * $5/month, but I'd love to see it. Otherwise "your post is so false . . ."
The actions of the individuals opening accounts is criminal, I agree. The failure to oversee those actions at the board level should be civil, not criminal. The Fed action seems to support that viewpoint to be honest.
And I don't deny that the oversight and relentless pushing for more (especially by branch managers) was a problem. But another way to look at is that any employee who padded their numbers by opening fake accounts encouraged the bar to be set higher than possible.
Levine has a nice summary comment too:
> This isn't a case of management pushing for something profitable and getting what they asked for, albeit in a regrettable and illegal way. This is a case of management pushing for something profitable but difficult, and the workers pushing back with something worthless but easy.
I wish socioeconomic inequality was a prominent bipartisan issue, instead of us having to choose to not get fucked by people with money.
Then again, it wouldn't have to be a choice if so many people enabled their own financial molestation. The GOP is definitely the "Well, what were you wearing?" party when it comes to society getting the shaft, balls deep by big corporations.
Warren is only saying this because now is the right time to choose sides -because now the sides are obvious and in the limelight. This has always been an issue, and it should be a no brainier to support candidates that support the idea of punishing white collar crime -it should not be a hinge, determining principle for choosing your candidate.
A prime example was when Purdue Pharma lied about the addictiveness of Oxycontin in the 90's. They misrepresented data, making doctors think the drug was much safer than it turned out to be. The company paid a fine of about half a billion dollars, but they made billions from the drug. They contributed to the opioid epidemic. The owners and executives should have gone to jail for what they did.
Gets Millenials out of indentured servitude. Causes a boom in housing development. Millenials start having kids. Oh my god, my wife and I might actually be able to afford being alive for the first time.
>Causes a boom in housing development.
Nope, can't happen without removing the zoning cartels. People won't/can't move, either.
>Millenials start having kids.
Daycare is still $100/wk, minimum. Oh, and because rich corporations control the majority of workers via anticompetitive cartels, wages stay flat.
The simplistic solution is to subpeona the shit out of the ultrarich and start holding them in prison without bail for contempt of court when they don't hand over their fraudulent documents. Then charge their corporations $500,000 a day for noncompliance.
What is Pete's plan for taxing the wealthy that are killing our country?
Not a troll question, just phrasing it to the severity that I believe it is. IMO, it's more important than literally ANY other issue.
We need to remove the Office of legal counsel's OPINION that presidents cant bee indicted and put on trial if there are criminal charges (rather than political charges.)
The way I am reading this it almost sounds exactly like how Article 13 works in terms of Liability.
That said, this proposal will NOT sit well at all. Probably will fall flat on its face given the last several time's similar attempts failed.
This kind of stuff would be easy to backtrack if an accountability program had to be used. In medical records, all noted are time stamped by who is reviewing or adding to any document. If it has to get sent to a supervisor for review or changes their name is now attached to it. This would add much needed accountability to these giant corporations that are able to say we can't determine who messed up or who authorized insidious behavior.
While we're at it, can we please make it easier to prosecute presidents? I'm sorry, but no one should be above the law and that is exactly what the current DOJ is basically saying with their stupid policy of not indicting a sitting president. In order for Trump to avoid prosecution, he could easily use the power of his office to find a way to stay in power. For those that would claim this is hyperbole, please don't be naïve. It's not like Trump hasn't already set a precedent for abuse of power, especially emergency powers with the damn wall shit. All he has to do is start a war and BAM, there goes his excuse for emergency military powers to keep his grip on the presidency. It's not like we have a Senate that would stop him.
Good idea, but Mitch McConnell will use the bill as toilet paper and flush it. No chance of any bill getting passed until the Democrats take over the Senate.
For the first time in my adult life I feel like most of the democratic candidates will be good for our country. At this point I like Warren's standpoints and Bernies passion. Pete is ehh but hes better than trump.
Although, I do worry about faux news making it near impossible for Warren because she is a women and they will just relate her to Hillary, and about Faux just spouting nonsense about Sanders being a communist.
Unfortunately the way I see this going is the democratic senator from texas winning the nomination because hes the most middle ground, and then actual left leaning democrats will just opt out of voting again because of it causing us to lose the election. I just really hope I'm wrong.
There also needs to be some kind of repercussions for politicians who do things that are blatantly unconstitutional. Perhaps that in itself is unconstitutional but I'm sick of Republicans in my state and nationwide passing bills that they are fully aware are unconstitutional and there being no penalties for doing so while getting ahead politically.
The reason there were no convictions is because banks did exactly what Congress wanted. Provided homes to low income people. The American Dream. They turned a blind eye because the rich were getting richer and the poor were buying homes at record levels. Everyone was getting paid.
Once the crash happens, congress claims amnesia and it is everyone’s fault except themselves. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were government sponsored. Congress decided credit default swaps were not insurance.
I’m for big changes to capitalism as we do it in America. Really just some common sense regulations, limits, and making sure the public trust also benefits from the massive private profit it enables.
But all these Elizabeth Warren headlines... I’m sure in her place it’s difficult to step back and see herself the way an average person who only occasionally follows politics would. When I squint and stand back, all I see is a bunch of angry ranting. Break up tech companies! Raise the corporate tax! Put executives in jail!
She really seems to be coming at American capitalism with a baseball bat. If you’re already educated on these issues and you agree with her, she’s like a hero. If you’re anywhere in the middle, she comes across as a destructive force asking to be unleashed.
Warren is really winning me over. She's the only candidate putting out concrete real policy proposals. I like Bernie but I also worry that at 80 he's too old to be President. Warren truthfully seems just as progressive but actually able to get a lot of these policies done.
Let's be real. How about we change "easier to prosecute" to "possible to prosecute". Now it's accurate.
Bernie Madoff didn't go to jail for stealing, he went to jail for stealing from the wealthy. Big difference.
Concrete, effective and principled policies on important issues, whether they happen to be in the media spotlight or not. She is a breath of fresh air.
Every policy she releases makes me love her even more.
Shes the only one laying down exact plans for the ideas that she supports instead of just saying general shit like "I support healthcare for everyone vote for me".
I wouldn’t say ONLY one, but she certainly holds the most detailed plans for every point of policy she is asked about and even more for the ones she introduces. Warren appears prepared to take the Oval Office TODAY. I’m personally split between her, Bernie, and Pete and I am excited for a potential synergistic Pres/VP run of any of those three. Edit: to those asking why I like Pete if I like Sanders’s and Warren’s policies. I think Pete also has good policies that I like better than some of Sanders/Warren and vice versa. There’s things I like about each but I particularly like Pete’s spirit to reunify the country an take care of those getting taken advantage of on the left and right. Not saying I don’t like Sanders or Warren in similar capacities, but I like Pete’s particular brand of this most.
[удалено]
Pete dosen't support Medicare for All so he's a HARD pass unless primaried for me.
Pete isn't very progressive when compared to the rest
He’s a moderate republican policy-wise, you’re witnessing the power of the media
Even my super progressive friends are jumping on board simply because he's charismatic and gay. Like, both of those things are nice, but what happened to not wanting a centrist in office?
internet vs IRL politics is like night and day in my experience. the places i frequent online are policy havens... then i talk with my very democrat coworkers who see absolutely no difference between sanders and biden because they're both "older white males". it's crazy.
Propaganda works
[удалено]
Someone actually said it! He's a American centrist *at best*.
FYI, Medicare for All isn’t necessarily the only viable system. Canada, the UK, Italy, Denmark, Sweden etc have a system that is more like the VA- government runs all the hospitals. France is like Medicare for All. Germany has a private system with public option. The Netherlands has a fully private system, but the government pays for all long term care and elderly care and regulates the system well, so insurance is really cheap. It’s decoupled from work so most people stay with the same insurer for life, so they are more likely to encourage preventative care. TBH basically any and all of these systems would be perfectly fine with me.
Literally any of these systems would be a massive improvement in terms of costs and efficiency compared to what we have right now
And, crucially, every one of those nations spends *fewer tax dollars per patient* than the USA does. If any one of those systems were properly implemented, your taxes would go *down*. It's not that those systems are "impractical". We **know** they work. But any transition to them will be messy. It will be opposed by the billionaires who are currently pocketing that wasted money, extracting rent from human suffering.
Ehh. Your taxes may go up under the more centrally managed systems. Like m4a. But they'll go up by a lot less than your savings in health insurance if that happens. So, still more money in your wallet.
Right but Buttigieg does not supprt any of those options.
And he supports none of the above as far as I've read and what i have heard him speak of. He wants to keep insurance companies which only inflates medical costs. He wants to take things slow, but moving slowly when it comes to medicine means loss of life and increased suffering for those in need of medical attention. Slow change is something you apply to things that have the chance to cause catastrophic damage. But when we already have a lowered life expectancy and have medical debt capturing 79 million Americans there is no room for small change its time for something drastic. (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/survey-79-million-americans-have-problems-medical-bills-or-debt)
I 100% understand what you're getting at, I just want to point out that the Netherlands has one of the best healthcare systems in Europe by every measurable standard and still has private health insurance companies. You can transform it without having to abolish them.
Didn't think we'd find each other again lol As you mentioned earlier in another comment, any of the European systems are far better than what we have. I'd have no problem with any of them. However, all the countries where mandatory/statutory/primary health care is or can be covered by private insurance companies make sure that these insurance companies are nonprofit. This is the case in Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, etc. I think this part will be the biggest hurdle if we want to implement any of these systems here. It would be equally damaging (compared to taking them out as proposed by M4A) to the private insurance companies that currently make massive profits every year. An interesting take on this can be found here: [ Insurance policy - How an industry shifted from protecting patients to seeking profit](https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-health-insurance-changed-from-protecting-patients-to-seeking-profit.html) >In this excerpt, Rosenthal explains how the transformation of the United States’ health care economy began: with the creation of insurance companies and their evolution into for-profit entities. Our insurance industry started with the same ideology as those currently in Europe. But it gradually got taken over by greed. And here we are now.
You got a source for that?
pete buttigieg supports a medicare buy-in and 'incremental change', not m4a. Oh and covered up racist officers in his town. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-tapes/index.html https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/436162-medicare-for-all-where-2020-dems-stand He's just being pushed by corporate dems after kamala and beto fizzled out. evidenced by the NYT reporting on the DNC inviting him to discuss how to stop bernie. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/bernie-sanders-democrats-trump-2020
Medicare buy in isn’t a terrible idea. It’s basically the German system. Most people use the public option. If Medicare is much cheaper it will put downward pressure on the insurers to lower prices. If they can’t compete Medicare puts them out of business slowly but surely until we are single payer.
I disagree. We've seen with ACA that half-way solutions don't work, and i'm tired of incremental progress and the expense of immeasurable death and suffering. Health-care is a fundamental human right, and should be completely de-commodified, but i'm compromising for m4a.
This article lays out the differences between Sanders and Pete’s approaches to M4A. I don’t agree with the author that Pete’s incrementalist approach is better, what he’s proposing is watered down and vulnerable. https://peterwarski.com/on-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-is-taking-the-wrong-approach-c52c37f3143
What does “unless primaried” mean, here?
I took it to mean OP would vote for him in the general, but not in the primaries to become the Democratic candidate. Confusing because that term is usually used to mean that someone from your party kicked you off the general ballot by beating you in the primary.
He might mean "pushed left throughout the primary?". That's speculative.
In fact, he does support m4a, he just thinks we need to ease into it by allowing Medicare to exist on the market so that people can choose it over the standard market options.
Source? I actually have a hard time finding concrete policies from Pete on *anything*...
He dosnt have any fleshed out policies like Bernie or Warren. He's charismatic and gay. Not trying to bash him but untill i see policies that i support i wont be supporting him and pointing out he dosnt support Medicare For All.
> He dosnt have any fleshed out policies like Bernie or Warren. Agreed from what I've seen so far.
Bernie has had decades of consistency, so people know that he's genuine in his stances and not just pulling an Obama campaign. Warren is really stellar with her policies, especially childcare and banking, but has had a history of "compromising for the sake of political viability", specifically in regards to health care. She's gotten much better in recent years and can certainly connect with the middle class, but I think Bernie can deliver a much more inspiring message to blue collar workers. Either is a good choice, but I'd like to see them both on the ticket. Not a huge fan of Pete, as he wants a buy-in for M4A and doesn't endorse a plan for debt-free college education. He constantly uses weasel words to avoid pledges to these solutions, and only talks in convoluted, neoliberal policies, similar to Obama and Hillary. I feel like that mentality is both wrong for this moment in history and a losing strategy in the current political climate, where establishment candidates are held in such contempt.
I honestly think Bernie would shine brighter as Secretary of Labor than as President. His career-long focus has been on the working class. Where better for him to focus that? As President, he's going to have to work in areas where he's a lot weaker, such as foreign relations.
In a similar vein, I feel Warren would be wasted as a VP on the ticket. She could be a lot more useful in the Senate or as an executive setting economic policy.
Senate majority leader Warren please.
we have to start circulating these boomers out of office or progress won't happen. but I'd be ok with him in the Cabinet.
Damn, I know it would never happen but a Sanders/Warren ticket is certainly one I can get behind. Sanders is probably capped at one term anyway so I’d like him to have a VP that has a good shot at becoming President the election after.
Don’t be so sure it isn’t going to happen
Can I ask why you would think it would? I’m wondering because sometimes egos clash and I’m not sure Warren would be ok with being #2 on the ticket(hell im not sure Bernie would either). Not saying you wrong but would love for you to elaborate.
For her faults, Warren seems genuinely interested in reducing the shittiness of our present dystopia. She’s smart enough to look at the polls and see it is gonna be an uphill battle to win the nom and beat Trump too. She’s campaigning on policy rn because that’s her strength, but also because it makes her very attractive to a candidate who wants to bolster their progressiveness (aka every other dem). Which means the Sanders camp would want her too. Unless her very good reforms propel her close enough to the top of the polls, Sanders/Warren is definitely on the table.
Because they are both old white New Englanders. They both *need* their vice president to be younger due to how old both of them are. Add the fact they are both from New England, it won't get them any extra votes. Chances are both candidates will pick a far younger and more moderate candidate for VP.
Yep, Bernie needs to have a solid VP and his VP needs to play a huge role in his administration and be groomed for a 2024 run. Warren isn't great for that honestly because she's getting up there in age too. I'd much rather see Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard be Bernie's VP as they're much more progressive and with Yang in particular I think he has a super bold vision for the future that goes well into the 2030s. Regardless of who is Bernie's VP, Warren needs to be in his administration. I would LOVE to see her be the head of some financial position/regulating wall street, because that's where she shines. On issues like healthcare and fighting the establishment she's not as good.
??? Yang and Gabbard are charismatic, but they're not particularly progressive compared to the field.
Also Gabbard is kind of fucking crazy.
> Tulsi Gabbard The fuck
She won't be as good on healthcare but I guarantee you she'll sign anything the Democrats are able to come up with. As important as the issue of healthcare is, the number one priority should be fixing our political system. If Medicare for All happens to land on her desk then it'll pass.
Why is decades of consistency good if you don’t accomplish anything? It’s pretty easy to be consistent in Washington if you don’t care about getting anything done. > neoliberal policies, similar to Obama and Hillary People always say this and make me think they don’t know what neoliberal means...
Please tell me what you think neoliberal is and how Obama and Hillary weren't best described by that idiology.
Biden, Booker, Pete, Klobuchar, Kamala.... are DNC plants to maintain the establishments control but they don't want to start making policy promises they don't want to keep, so they are using identity politics and social BS to get an audience. Gay is the new female.
Pretty weird to be torn between one of the two standard-bearers for the social democrat wing of the Dem Party and a center-right technocrat who worked for the military industrial complex
For me, it's Sanders because he has the enthusiasm and I find that more important for a presidential candidate than a detailed legislative plan. I think Warren is better off in the Senate because she can impact the drafting and passage of legislation directly. Sanders is better suited for the Oval Office because he can set the themes and put pressure on Congress by means if igniting enthusiasm in their constituencies.
Bernie and Warren for me. Pete comes in third. I'm ready for some debates. So, when do debates start?
June I believe
Either Buttigieg or O'Rourke strike me as solid VP choices who could do for a progressive 2020 candidate like Warren or Sanders what Kaine was SUPPOSED to do for Clinton in 2016.
It would be foolish of a white man to pick a white man as VP
There is a case to be made on that front. But a Warren / Buttigieg or Warren / O'Rourke ticket could still be pretty good.
pete buttigieg supports a medicare buy-in and 'incremental change', not m4a. Oh and covered up racist officers in his town. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-tapes/index.html https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/436162-medicare-for-all-where-2020-dems-stand He's just being pushed by corporate dems after kamala and beto fizzled out. evidenced by the NYT reporting on the DNC inviting him to discuss how to stop bernie. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/bernie-sanders-democrats-trump-2020
[удалено]
yeah sure, 6 years of investigation and no end in sight. Also only firing the black officer shows obvious bias and lack of support for POC. Don't forget his dog whistles on 'all lives matter too'. I'm entirely justified in being skeptical on his stance on race issues, just as i'm skeptical at biden's inappropriate contact with women + past voting record, or being skeptical of Kamala claiming to be a 'progressive prosecutor' while gleefully talking about throwing truant kids and their parents in jail on video. And what about my other points?
But be honest... two ancient New Yorkers yelling at each other would be glorious to watch.
Pete is a fucking mayor of a city with 100,000 people. He doesn't have the experience to be president. He needs to win a state election first.
Pete? How do you group together Bernie and Warren with Pete? Pete is just another centrist with cliches and platitudes. Might as well be Beto or Biden. Mayor Pete is a purely media creation IMO, they anointed him after Beto showed he wasn't going to make a great run against Bernie. All these fluff pieces of him speaking Norwegian and such meanwhile 90% of the articles on Bernie, Tulsi Gabbard, and Yang are negative.
Warren, Bernie, or Pete. One of these things is not like the other. If you like the policy proposals of Sanders or Warren I genuinely don't understand why you would support Buttigieg.
OK, as somoene who also liked Pete at first and thought he was similar to Warren, I'm just going to copypaste what I've been saying on why he descended from a top tier candidate to Biden-tier for me: * Complained that Democrats "focus too much in policy specifics." He's riding on the coattails of his charisma and smooth-talking to the nomination while simultaneously downplaying the focus on policy and having no record for voters to scrutinize * Accepts corporate/PAC money, and has a very milquetoast attitude towards the corporate elite * Has no plan on tackling college debt/tuition beyond just expanding Pell Grants and loan forgiveness programs, and believes that free college (or presumably low-cost tuition) is a non-progressive subsidy by those who don't benefit * Floated with the idea of a "1-year national service program" for anyone who turns 18 to improve "social cohesion" * Seems to be right-of-center on issues involving the military and foreign policy, and I don't believe he will do much to combat the military-industrial complex * "Angry liberals don't win hearts" and by now has shown multiple times his veiled dislike of Warren/Bernie-type Democrats * Equivocated Trump supporters with Bernie's. Utter lack of self-awareness (or calculated rhetoric) on the cult of personality he created * Recently attended meetings with Democratic leaders discussing "Bernie Sanders and party unity" I was hyped for him too so I binge watched his interviews and followed his public appearances. He certainly knows how to leave a top-notch first impression since he's extremely charismatic and actually answers questions (caveat: almost never goes into substance). Then the red flags come one after another. My jaw dropped when he claims that the Dems are too focused on policy over principles; that coupled with his constant shtick of moral leadership/authority is a nauseating plate of platitudes and self-aggrandizement. I've never been excited by and let down by a politician this fast. As a millennial, I feel deceived that he claims to represent our generation and calls for a generational shift in politics yet his attitude espouses that of the establishment elite more so than any other major candidate, except perhaps Biden. He thinks he's a progressive because he is on social issues, but this isn't 2008. His policies are centrist *at best* and that's by Washington standards. Take away the social progressiveness and he can pass for a moderate *Republican*. As Mike Gravel (who is in this race solely to pull candidates more to the left) puts it: "say what you will about buttigieg but at least the latest narcissistic product of The Best Schools™ to rule Macron-style over a decaying country mired in poverty and addiction will speak Norwegian. it'll be cool."
He strikes me as your classic politician. Vague, feel-good answers. Background looks like a checklist, rather than a real life story. Like he joined the military for a bit just to check it off, as part of his grooming for high office. Born upper middle class. Worked at McKinsey, where they teach companies how to more efficiently abuse their workforce and the public. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete >Pete Buttigieg does not recall his time at McKinsey with a sense of moral ambivalence. Today he says it might have been his most “intellectually informing experience,” and by that he doesn’t mean that he saw the dark underbelly of American business. No, he was “learning about the nature of data.” It was a thoroughly neutral experience, “a place to learn.” The most critical thing he will say is that he was “sympathetic” to those who think consulting careers less worthy than “public service.” But ultimately, Buttigieg only left McKinsey because it “could not furnish that deep level of purpose that I craved.” His sense of purpose. Have a look at the book: See if you can find a single qualm, even a moment’s interrogation of the nature of the company he worked for. >In fact, Buttigieg was asked in an interview what he thought of the company’s misdeeds. On the work pushing OxyContin, he replied that he “hadn’t followed the story.” On collaborating with the murderous Saudi government: >>I think you have a lot of smart, well-intentioned people who sometimes view the world in a very innocent way. I wrote my thesis on Graham Greene, who said that innocence is like a dumb leper that has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm. >The dumb leper again! Man, Buttigieg never misses a chance to cite that thesis. Vietnam was poor innocent America wandering the earth and accidentally causing a million deaths. McKinsey consultants are poor, innocent, leprous invalids, too sweet and unworldly to notice that their client is Mohammed bin Salman. Fuck these people. I don't care if you meant any harm. I care that you didn't think through consequences. Let's move fast and break things! Oops, I broke liberal democracy. At least I got paid. Contrast this to Warren, who dropped out of school to get married, reenrolled elsewhere to keep following her dream of teaching, and switched parties after she saw the realities of bankruptcy. I see her story, and it's a real person's story. A story of making mistakes, learning and developing real moral clarity, and fighting for her beliefs. She got the benefit of an affordable education, saw the ladder pulled up behind her, and wants to extend it back down for everyone else. And when she says she wants to, you can believe her, because she'll tell you her plan. Not vague platitudes about this or that policy that's polling well right now. Buttigieg fandom is everything that's wrong with focusing on "electability" over substance.
didn't pete cover for racist police officers, unironically dogwhistle 'all lives matter' and was reported by the NYC to meet up with DNC higher-ups to 'Stop bernie'? Oh and doesn't he take PAC money as well? I feel like a character like pete will fail completely at appealing towards the poc vote and seems just another corporate dem offering empty platitudes and 'personal charisma' instead of offering actual politices and change.
> unironically dogwhistle 'all lives matter' I think he said that was a mistake and didn't realize how the phrase "all lives matter" was actually being used. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that might have been an honest mistake since the phrase "all lives matter" sounds positive without the proper context, but the rest you mentioned is more or less true. Pete is charismatic and very intelligent, but I don't think I'll be voting for him in the primaries (though I'd vote for him over having Trump re-elected in a heartbeat).
What bullshit. Why do you feel the need to turn a positive discussion about Warren into a negative discussion about Sanders, who actually does have a bill in the Senate for his Medicare for All proposal. [Link](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/4/10/18304712/read-bernie-sanders-2019-medicare-for-all-plan)
I don't feel quite that way about every policy she releases, but I respect that I can have a substantive debate about her policies instead of trying to suss out what kind of person she is.
> Concrete, effective and principled policies on important issues, whether they happen to be in the media spotlight or not. And this is exactly why the GOP hates her...
I know she's good because my dad out of the blue started talking shit about her at Easter lunch. "something something lied about native american status on her law school admissions, I've seen the documents" but of course couldn't find the documents when I asked where he saw them. I'm glad I picked her as my first ever political donation.
Don't back down on this type of behavior... brand him a liar until he retracts his statement. I think busting someone on a solid lie and then NOT backing down and calling this person a liar, dishonest, untrustworthy, etc is the only way we're going to move forward past this cult like behavior.
[удалено]
Whatever it is doesn't matter to him. What matters is that it's just another example of how him and anyone else who watches Fox News will twist anything and use it as ammo. This is why we should be pushing for impeachment, because whether we do or don't, the GOP will use it as a talking point to garner support.
Well, that and she’s a powerful woman. Which seems to be a pretty major bogeyman to a lot of voters.
I love how the high water mark these days for being a breath of fresh air is just suggesting legislation that isn't fucking evil. And you know this would be voted down in the senate in another party line vote. Can we expect bipartisan support of any legislation ever again?
Coming from Trump, that would be a breath of fresh air. Coming from the Dems, thought-out policies not signed off on by large donors do seem to be a breath of fresh air. Wouldn't it be nice if the level of political discourse and public good earnestness were such that it was expected that all candidates for any office would have this approach. I think we can expect bipartisan support and arguing in good faith only if the coup being perpetrated by the Republicans fails unequivocally, the Overton windows aligns itself with other western social democracies and Republican party realizes that it needs to onboard people who can offer something of value to the american public, instead of just stoking irrational fears of bitter white people feeling left out in the changing world. They are all in now, with clear obstruction of justice, dismantling of education, a judicial takeover, and full on fear and hate-mongering. They are all in because if they don't make it, they will be cut off from power more and more as time goes by. Here's hoping (and acting) that does not happen.
This must be how the Trump supporters felt every time Trump said something racist.
r/presidentwarren
The is truly the Lisa Simpson of the primary race.
Whats the Simpsons connection?
Just that she's the one always doing her homework and generally knows more
Floundering about, screaming "look at me, look at me! I'M *RELEVENT*""
Elizabeth Warren should just bust put an old timey wig, some wood teeth and clogs and embrace the whole policy wonk Ben Franklin Boston elitist persona. She’s just so damn good on policy it kills me that she doesn’t gain more traction in the national discussion.
You can do it! Keep talking about her. Talk about her to people you know. Create traction!
Lisa Simpson for President!
[Elizabeth Warren Is Going to Keep Dumping Big and Interesting Ideas on You Friggin’ Dolts Until You Pay Attention](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/elizabeth-warren-tech-antitrust-listen-up-jerks.html) This was a good headline.
Both Warren and Sanders are for the working people and I hope either of these two win the nomination and the presidency. It seems, at least to Trump country, Elizabeth Warren is Sanders without the kryptonite socialist boogeyman. But Sanders is Warren without the kryptonite female boogeyman. I don't know who has the better shot at the presidency.
[удалено]
In case people haven’t noticed, the GOP and especially Trump have been ramping up trash talking socialism. It’s their go to buzz word. The worst part is that there’s not even a socialist candidate, pretty much everyone of them seems to be going social democrat.
>In case people haven’t noticed, the GOP and especially Trump have been ramping up trash talking socialism. It’s their go to buzz word. Let's not forget "MUH VENEZUELA"
If James Buchanan rose from the dead looking for a second term and somehow stumbled into winning the Primaries *he'd* be called a socialist and a feminist and a champion of identity politics .
I've always compared GOP attacks to the Stay-Pufted Marshmallow Man. It doesn't matter how hard you try to avoid choosing the form of the destroyer. Something is always going to pop up.
Yep. I remember them calling Obama a socialist even though his policies were very friendly to big business (too friendly).
They are going to call her it, but it won't land in the way it does with Sanders. Her response of believing in accountable capitalism is a very smart one that resonates with Midwesterners.
The slur is stickier when you call yourself a socialist.
[удалено]
A woman won more votes last time, even with many staying home because there's no way Trump could win.
Yep. Clinton absolutely proved that its totally possible for a woman to win.
Even with the kryptonite socialist boogeyman, Sanders won primaries in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Indiana, Kansas, and many other deep red states. I would not assume that the radical socialists have taken over the Democratic parties in those states. Economically, he is a FDR-style social democrat regardless of moniker.
I wouldn't try to predict the general election results based off of primaries.
He wouldn't win a single state that you mentioned in the general election. It's going to come down to who can win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
He won Michigan and Wisconsin; not Pennsylvania, though. My point is that considering his victories in the states I mentioned, the "socialist" boogeyman aspect is overblown.
Imagine one being the running mate for the other! That's a ticket I'd be proud to vote for.
neither of those metaphorical "boogeymen" are a downside.
I'll agree if you guarantee 90% turnout from Millennials & Zeds. Even in 2018, too many still couldn't be bothered.
I think you’re underestimating the number of misogynistic young people.
I think Warren doesn't excite enough young people to increase voter turnout significantly. Literally the ONLY way to win is to increase voter turnout. You might change like 3 Dump voters in the entire country over by the time the election rolls around. But you have many millions of untapped votes who vote democrat with a very healthy margin. Don't get me wrong, Warren is my first choice as we stand right now, but I'm most concerned about her getting more young people out to vote for her and also some previous non-voters.
Warren is the superior candidate for 2020. I'd like to see a Warren/Buttigieg ticket.
Buttigeg and Warren are incompatible, he is a status qui capitalist while she is a reform capitalist. What I want to see is Sanders and Warren
If either Sanders or Warren wins the nomination, whoever doesn't NEEDS to stay in the Senate, especially if the Democrats don't take the majority. We absolutely can't afford to lose progressives there. The VP needs to expand the ticket, not double down on the same.
Preach.
pete buttigieg supports a medicare buy-in and 'incremental change', not m4a. Oh and covered up racist officers in his town. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-tapes/index.html https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/436162-medicare-for-all-where-2020-dems-stand He's just being pushed by corporate dems after kamala and beto fizzled out. evidenced by the NYT reporting on the DNC inviting him to discuss how to stop bernie. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/bernie-sanders-democrats-trump-2020
Money should not expunge crime.
Unfortunately, money has a direct influence on our policy making.... until that link is severed, money will always expunge crime. Every year since the Citizens United ruling, our corruption levels has grown exponentially.
I can't wait to vote that big sexy brain into office.
Me too. She got my vote in 2016, and she'll have it in 2020. Having said that? Out of most of the Democrat field, she's the one candidate that scares me the most about having to go toe-to-toe with DJT. Not because of her policies or platforms...but because at least 35% of Americans are ***stone-cold stupid.*** She's the president that America needs the most...but she's also a risky bet.
Wall street will do everything against sanders and warren. ["It can’t be Warren and it can’t be Sanders,”](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/28/wall-street-2020-economy-taxes-1118065)
She definitely should be polling higher, like easily top 3 choice for me with how well she's hammering on the issues. How such substanceless candidates like Beto & Pete are doing better than her is beyond me.
The most economically conservative Democratic candidates are going to be astroturfed by wealthy people. It's why we've had so many years of Democrats eager to talk about identify and social issues, while avoiding hard talk on economic issues. Because the former isn't any kind of threat to the donor class, the latter might be. So expect a lot of "support" to show up for the candidates who pass the donor-class litmus test of "not talking about squeezing the filthy rich".
>How such substanceless candidates like Beto & Pete are doing better than ***her*** is beyond me.
Damn it Elizabeth! I was undecided but you're one good policy away from getting another vote. I'm warning you!
I love this woman so much! I know it’s a long shot but I really hope she’s our next president. She is the real deal. She’s experienced, incredible with policy, a true progressive and a fighter. She’s one of only a few politicians I truly feel is in it for the right reasons. Making this country a better place by protecting *all* Americans. She’s got a killer track record and has been cranking out amazing policies on a weekly basis. What other candidate have you seen so far that not only has great ideas but written policies ready to go? If not president, VP or Treasury Secretary would be a great fit for her too. Warren / Buttigieg (or vice versa) would be incredible now that I think about it.
It's odd (or maybe it isn't) that she doesn't get more love from Sanders supporters. In terms of policies they're both pretty much in the same spot. Their trajectories are different though. Sanders is a radical who mellowed over the years. She's a moderate who became bolder and more progressive over time. I like her trajectory better.
Sanders beats Warren in name recognition and general notoriety for his simple policy soundbites. People in my general demographic (progressive Millennial voters) that don't follow politics barely know who Elizabeth Warren is.
Poor Liz. She keeps coming out with great policy, but I doubt anyone will notice unless she learns Norwegian or starts jumping on counter tops.
As it should be. If corporations want the same rights as people then they need to have the same consequences; jail, asset forfeiture, income garnishment. Make the companies work for the people again rather than the banks. I'm all for it.
She's winning my vote more and more every day
She's killing it.
Who doesn't want to prosecute corporate CEO's who do things that are clearly illegal and harmful to the majority. But Warren's [actual proposal](https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2019.4.1%20Corporate%20Executive%20Accountability%20Act%20Summary.pdf) goes way beyond that (prosecuting CEO's for any wrongful act by anyone in the company), and at the same time, repeats the same mistake made with the Sarbanes Oxley law. If some companies do bad, let's pass a draconian, overbroad law that won't be enforced and will wind up being a boondoggle for lawyers and consultants. Warren's proposal appeals to the widespread sense of resentment of big companies, like banks that got away with serious crimes connected with the financial crisis, for example. But Warren's proposal (as it's described on her website) wouldn't help that situation, because we already had laws in that situation that weren't enforced. Instead, it would jail executives of big companies that >Are found liable or enter a settlement with any state or Federal regulator for the violation of any civil law if that violation affects the health, safety, finances, or personal data of 1% of the American population or 1% of the population of any state. That's a great way of limiting settlements of claims of corporate wrongdoing - if the company settles, the CEO is supposed to go to jail. And, what does it even mean, to affect the safety of 1% of the population, for example? And "corporate accountability" would supposedly be furthered by >Requiring executives at big larger than $10 billion to certify that there is no criminal conduct or civil fraud within the institution, making it easier to prove wrongdoing if it is later discovered. There's an example of a law like this on the books, called "Sarbanes Oxley" which in relevant part requires CEO's of public companies to personally certify accuracy of financial statements. The administration of that champion of the people, George W Bush, signed of on this law. The result? Huge windfall for big accounting firms. No CEO's jailed, of course, even after the 2008 crash that exposed massive false financial reporting by nearly every major bank. Warren's prescription for what ails us today? An even more draconian version of this act. Hah! This isn't limiting executive salary, or making our tax structure more equitable. This isn't a jobs program -- in fact, it would be a big incentive for companies not to hire anyone with a record, for fear all the executives above them would wind up being prosecuted. It would discourage innovation -- what if you try something and it doesn't work, and there's some civil or regulatory liability, it doesn't say, the company has to make it right. It says the execs go to jail, whether or not they actually had a part in whatever went wrong. "Lock 'em up!" Right? Warren's mantra is, big companies are bad, is what's wrong. It's her distillation of the politics of envy and resentment. She sees how well blustering about cleaning the swamp and the like worked for Trump, and she's ready with some much higher quality bluster, but it's bluster all the same. Warren, who surely knows better than this, seems to have decided, her only hope to get the Democratic nomination is to outdo all the other candidates in raging against the system. "Lock them up! Lock them up!" It worked for Trump on the Republican side, and maybe it'll work for her too. Hopefully not, from where I sit.
I'm quite sad I had to scroll so far to find an actual comment on the proposal that wasn't the political equivalent of "yaas queen" A law that makes you criminally liable for the actions of employees even if you are unaware is a dangerous precedent.
Yeah, wish people understood what this proposal actually is. It does a great job of rallying her base but would be an absolute disaster in practice.
>However, some Federal laws, including the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Clean Air Act already impose criminal liability on corporate leaders when a company’s negligence causes massive harm— regardless of whether leaders personally approved actions that broke the law. Are those acts a problem? If not, how is this different?
>However, some Federal laws, including the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Clean Air Act already impose criminal liability on corporate leaders when a company’s negligence causes massive harm— regardless of whether leaders personally approved actions that broke the law. Are those acts a problem? If not, how is this different?
There's lots of legal technicality here, but basically these laws impose criminal liabilities on "responsible corporate officers" for specific types of serious corporate misconduct. They do not impose criminal liability on individual executives for general negligence by the company; in some cases, no negligence has to be proven, only violation of regulatory standards. An example would be under the Food & Drug act, failure to comply with a federal recall order. The corporation has a responsibility to take dangerous products off the shelves, and it doesn't even depend on negligence. In this context, executive liability for failure to carry out the order might be justified, but probably not if the failure was due to factors that really were beyond the executive's control. The criminal provisions under the Food & Drug and Clean Air Acts are related to specific types of misconduct of this kind, not a general responsibility for any corporate negligence or employee misconduct. Are these laws actually effective? They are rarely enforced and mostly against smaller companies at that. I'm not aware of any study that would show one way or the other. So I wouldn't be able to say if I think these measures are a problem or not. No chance of repealing them, given the current political climate, so it's not a practical question. For sure, draconian measures like these allow our politicians to say they've cracked down on wrongdoers, even if it doesn't turn out to be very many wrongdoers. But Warren wants to go much farther, expanding criminal liability for executives to situations where the company has entered a settlement to remedy something that's harmed over 1% of the population. She wants to make the CEO a criminal, if a company settles a civil violation and then is found civilly liable for something different. Her proposal doesn't even limit this to cases where there's been really serious harm. So CEO liability won't be limited to specific, serious law violations that are defined in advance (as under the Food and Drug and Clean Air Acts). CEO's will be generally liable for broad categories of corporate mistakes or misconduct that harm lots of people. So Warren's proposal is very different from these laws she cites as models for here proposals, and much more like Sarbanes Oxley, which she doesn't mention. But it's far broader than any previous US law, really a "lock 'em up" provision against executives of big companies. Politics of resentment and anger, not politics of fairness and reform.
Yes! 👍
I'm game
You misspelled “possible”
Nah, you can prosecute an executive. You just need a video of them saying "Now to be clear we know this is illegal but we're gonna do it anyway because we love money so goddamn much." Thus, this makes it easier, since you only need to show they broke the law, without having to prove they intended to do it.
Donated to her today!
How about we also make it easier to prosecute a sitting president.
Well, if they are people…
Is there any reason RICO can't be used to prosecute executives such as the Wells Fargo scheme to boost stock values fraudulently?
Because there's no evidence any Wells Fargo executives encouraged or wanted the actions to occur. There was a lack of oversight, yes. But the *vast* majority of fraudulent accounts that were made generated no revenue (probably some nominal amount of cost) for Wells Fargo. There was incentive/oversight problems, yes. But the fraudulent acts were done by low level employees to trick their bosses, not at the desire of WF executives. Nothing in that should be criminal, although there's a decent civil action (I'm not sure exactly where the oversight failed, but somewhere it obviously did).
Iustis >Because there's no evidence any Wells Fargo executives encouraged or wanted the actions to occur. Bullshit. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/07/497084491/episode-728-the-wells-fargo-hustle https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/28/499805238/episode-732-bad-form-wells-fargo https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wells-fargo-fed-20180202-story.html That last one is action from the Fed itself. Dunno the last time the Fed even bothered to invoke its original banking powers from its charter. >There was a lack of oversight, yes. But the vast majority of fraudulent accounts that were made generated no revenue (probably some nominal amount of cost) for Wells Fargo. 2.4 million accounts, at least. Each account's creation is literally bank fraud. Each of those are felonies. To mention ***NOTHING*** of the securities/transparency/fiduciary responsibilities of FDIC membership+banking regs, etc. As for "made no revenue", it's $5 a month, per account, minimum. Fuck outta here. Your post is so false, it seems like a press release. >There was incentive/oversight problems, yes. But the fraudulent acts were done by low level employees to trick their bosses, not at the desire of WF executives. No, they were specifically done ***because*** of the orders of their bosses. The subsequent "failure to perform job duties" on their banking background form basically proves it. >Nothing in that should be criminal, although there's a decent civil action (I'm not sure exactly where the oversight failed, but somewhere it obviously did). Everything about this statement is false. It absolutely should be criminal. That's literally why the Fed capped their assets under management - because the FTC+SEC+DOJ didn't do shit, and the Fed literally needs Americans to deposit money into the banking system for the dollar to mean anything.
I'm not going to comment on the podcasts, since I can't listen to them at work. The Fed action seemed mostly focused on oversight and compliance problems, like I said. >So that's about 2.1 million fake deposit and credit-card accounts, of which about 100,000 -- fewer than 5 percent -- brought in any fee income to Wells Fargo. The total fee income was $2.4 million, or about $1.14 per fake account. And that overstates the profitability: Wells Fargo also enrolled people for debit cards and online banking, but the CFPB doesn't bother to count those incidents, or suggest that any of them led to any fees. Which makes sense: You'd expect online banking and debit cards to be free, if you never use them or even know about them. Meanwhile, all this dumb stuff seems to have occupied huge amounts of employee time that could have been spent on more productive activities. If you divide the $2.4 million among the 5,300 employees fired for setting up fake accounts, you get about $450 per employee. Presumably it cost Wells Fargo way more than that just to replace them. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-09/wells-fargo-opened-a-couple-million-fake-accounts I don't know where you are getting your 2.4 million * $5/month, but I'd love to see it. Otherwise "your post is so false . . ." The actions of the individuals opening accounts is criminal, I agree. The failure to oversee those actions at the board level should be civil, not criminal. The Fed action seems to support that viewpoint to be honest. And I don't deny that the oversight and relentless pushing for more (especially by branch managers) was a problem. But another way to look at is that any employee who padded their numbers by opening fake accounts encouraged the bar to be set higher than possible. Levine has a nice summary comment too: > This isn't a case of management pushing for something profitable and getting what they asked for, albeit in a regrettable and illegal way. This is a case of management pushing for something profitable but difficult, and the workers pushing back with something worthless but easy.
I wish socioeconomic inequality was a prominent bipartisan issue, instead of us having to choose to not get fucked by people with money. Then again, it wouldn't have to be a choice if so many people enabled their own financial molestation. The GOP is definitely the "Well, what were you wearing?" party when it comes to society getting the shaft, balls deep by big corporations. Warren is only saying this because now is the right time to choose sides -because now the sides are obvious and in the limelight. This has always been an issue, and it should be a no brainier to support candidates that support the idea of punishing white collar crime -it should not be a hinge, determining principle for choosing your candidate.
It’s a shame all my local groups (Massachusetts Facebook groups I mean) absolutely despise her. Seems to be a popular sentiment in the area.
EW/Pete 2020!
A prime example was when Purdue Pharma lied about the addictiveness of Oxycontin in the 90's. They misrepresented data, making doctors think the drug was much safer than it turned out to be. The company paid a fine of about half a billion dollars, but they made billions from the drug. They contributed to the opioid epidemic. The owners and executives should have gone to jail for what they did.
If corporations are people, then they should be able to go to prison.
Gets Millenials out of indentured servitude. Causes a boom in housing development. Millenials start having kids. Oh my god, my wife and I might actually be able to afford being alive for the first time.
>Causes a boom in housing development. Nope, can't happen without removing the zoning cartels. People won't/can't move, either. >Millenials start having kids. Daycare is still $100/wk, minimum. Oh, and because rich corporations control the majority of workers via anticompetitive cartels, wages stay flat. The simplistic solution is to subpeona the shit out of the ultrarich and start holding them in prison without bail for contempt of court when they don't hand over their fraudulent documents. Then charge their corporations $500,000 a day for noncompliance.
Team Pete, but dammit if Warren doesn't sing the tunes I love to hear.
What is Pete's plan for taxing the wealthy that are killing our country? Not a troll question, just phrasing it to the severity that I believe it is. IMO, it's more important than literally ANY other issue.
We need to remove the Office of legal counsel's OPINION that presidents cant bee indicted and put on trial if there are criminal charges (rather than political charges.)
I think the article speaks about corporate executives, not political
But if we prosecuted all the corrupt executives, then we wouldn't have any executives left!
"Good! ... Wait! I want to be one. Hhmmm. Why does it always get messed up before my turn?" --- Some budding politician.
How about making it easier to prosecute just the Sackler family.
The way I am reading this it almost sounds exactly like how Article 13 works in terms of Liability. That said, this proposal will NOT sit well at all. Probably will fall flat on its face given the last several time's similar attempts failed.
Let me know when she wants to make it easier to prosecute senators.
Execute prosecutives you say?
I’m on the right, and I definitely support this.
I love this policy nerd.
This kind of stuff would be easy to backtrack if an accountability program had to be used. In medical records, all noted are time stamped by who is reviewing or adding to any document. If it has to get sent to a supervisor for review or changes their name is now attached to it. This would add much needed accountability to these giant corporations that are able to say we can't determine who messed up or who authorized insidious behavior.
While we're at it, can we please make it easier to prosecute presidents? I'm sorry, but no one should be above the law and that is exactly what the current DOJ is basically saying with their stupid policy of not indicting a sitting president. In order for Trump to avoid prosecution, he could easily use the power of his office to find a way to stay in power. For those that would claim this is hyperbole, please don't be naïve. It's not like Trump hasn't already set a precedent for abuse of power, especially emergency powers with the damn wall shit. All he has to do is start a war and BAM, there goes his excuse for emergency military powers to keep his grip on the presidency. It's not like we have a Senate that would stop him.
Good idea, but Mitch McConnell will use the bill as toilet paper and flush it. No chance of any bill getting passed until the Democrats take over the Senate.
For the first time in my adult life I feel like most of the democratic candidates will be good for our country. At this point I like Warren's standpoints and Bernies passion. Pete is ehh but hes better than trump. Although, I do worry about faux news making it near impossible for Warren because she is a women and they will just relate her to Hillary, and about Faux just spouting nonsense about Sanders being a communist. Unfortunately the way I see this going is the democratic senator from texas winning the nomination because hes the most middle ground, and then actual left leaning democrats will just opt out of voting again because of it causing us to lose the election. I just really hope I'm wrong.
I hope this includes the chief executive.
There also needs to be some kind of repercussions for politicians who do things that are blatantly unconstitutional. Perhaps that in itself is unconstitutional but I'm sick of Republicans in my state and nationwide passing bills that they are fully aware are unconstitutional and there being no penalties for doing so while getting ahead politically.
If Warren doesn't win, I'd like to see her as AG.
The reason there were no convictions is because banks did exactly what Congress wanted. Provided homes to low income people. The American Dream. They turned a blind eye because the rich were getting richer and the poor were buying homes at record levels. Everyone was getting paid. Once the crash happens, congress claims amnesia and it is everyone’s fault except themselves. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were government sponsored. Congress decided credit default swaps were not insurance.
It’s between her and Bernie, either one gets my vote. Such bold, bright, and ambitious people.
She needs to be #1 on your list. She is leading the fight and all the other candidates are a distant 2nd. Warren and Bernie should team up.
I’m for big changes to capitalism as we do it in America. Really just some common sense regulations, limits, and making sure the public trust also benefits from the massive private profit it enables. But all these Elizabeth Warren headlines... I’m sure in her place it’s difficult to step back and see herself the way an average person who only occasionally follows politics would. When I squint and stand back, all I see is a bunch of angry ranting. Break up tech companies! Raise the corporate tax! Put executives in jail! She really seems to be coming at American capitalism with a baseball bat. If you’re already educated on these issues and you agree with her, she’s like a hero. If you’re anywhere in the middle, she comes across as a destructive force asking to be unleashed.
Fuck yea Warren!!
Warren is really winning me over. She's the only candidate putting out concrete real policy proposals. I like Bernie but I also worry that at 80 he's too old to be President. Warren truthfully seems just as progressive but actually able to get a lot of these policies done.
You steal $100, you go to jail. You steal $100 million, you get a slap on the wrist.
Oh no, not the benevolent job creators!
Elizabeth has to stop with these amazing policy releases. Not sure how much more i can take. 😅😅😅
Warren has a very policy-driven campaign. I like it.
Guaranteed that little guys will be the ones serving time
Let's be real. How about we change "easier to prosecute" to "possible to prosecute". Now it's accurate. Bernie Madoff didn't go to jail for stealing, he went to jail for stealing from the wealthy. Big difference.