And there's this...
Majority of Republicans supports 'Medicare for all,' poll finds

The DNC is trying to encourage grassroots fundraising, but most candidates are getting most of their money from large donations.

Quote:

---

Candidates seeking the White House filed their first-quarter fundraising totals on Monday, revealing that many are still relying on checks exceeding $200. Of the 15 Democrats who launched campaigns before April 1, only six of 15 amassed half their hauls from small-dollar donations.

And many candidates are still leaning on donors in their home states for larger checks. Nine Democratic candidates received the bulk of their contributions of $200 or more from their home states, the Reuters analysis found.

---

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-fundraising/most-u-s-democratic-presidential-hopefuls-still-relying-on-large-campaign-donations-idUSKCN1RS0A9

It should be noted though, that the people that have performed well so far, have achieved this large grassroots goal.

Quote:

---

Many Democrats have touted their support among so-called "small dollar" donors, those who give less than $200. But only six U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Congressman Beto O'Rourke, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard, and Andrew Yang, a former tech executive are relying chiefly on those small-dollar donors.

---

It will be interesting to see how the field begins to shift once the more established candidates (the Gillibrand's, Booker's, Harris', and Klobuchar's) start the media blitz, and if the surprise candidates like Buttigieg or Yang can stay in the spotlight.

Right now I have a top 2. My heart is with Warren but my brain is with Biden. Still fluid.

I do not like Elizabeth Warren tax proposal on the ultra rich.
Like, all of a sudden, you're just going to come in and start taking their money?
It sounds like robbery the way she talks about it on stage.

Let's see. Let me go to her site and get the details:

https://elizabethwarren.com/ultra-millionaire-tax/

That's why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or moreroughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%.
Households would pay an annual
- 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a
- 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.
Because wealth is so concentrated, Saez and Zucman project that this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $2.75 trillion in revenue over a ten-year period.

concordtom said:

---

I do not like Elizabeth Warren tax proposal on the ultra rich.
Like, all of a sudden, you're just going to come in and start taking their money?
It sounds like robbery the way she talks about it on stage.

Let's see. Let me go to her site and get the details:

https://elizabethwarren.com/ultra-millionaire-tax/

That's why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or moreroughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%.
Households would pay an annual
- 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a
- 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.
Because wealth is so concentrated, Saez and Zucman project that this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $2.75 trillion in revenue over a ten-year period.

---

So, I know people who this applies to.
One owns a lot of stock in his company. It's totally concentrated. He would have to sell his stock in order to pay the tax. This would reduce his controlling interest in the company, which he built from the ground up. That doesn't seem fair. It's not like the value is $100M just sitting as cash in a bank account.

Another owns commercial real estate properties in Silicon Valley. What's he going to do? Sell buildings? There could be years when rents and cash income decline.

And the tax is repeating every year. So, let's say someone has $100M in assets. If they are interest bearing at 3%, no problem. You pay 2% and still earn $1M income for the year.
But if the valued assets are not interest bearing, as in stock, then the govt is going to take 2% of your assets. If the stock is flat, then next year it's worth $98M, then 96, then 94. If we hit years where the stock market is down, then you are going south faster.

This is not necessarily a great plan.
And Warren stood on stage with a straight face and said it's only 2 cents!

concordtom said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I do not like Elizabeth Warren tax proposal on the ultra rich.
Like, all of a sudden, you're just going to come in and start taking their money?
It sounds like robbery the way she talks about it on stage.

Let's see. Let me go to her site and get the details:

https://elizabethwarren.com/ultra-millionaire-tax/

That's why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or moreroughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%.
Households would pay an annual
- 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a
- 3% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.
Because wealth is so concentrated, Saez and Zucman project that this small tax on roughly 75,000 households will bring in $2.75 trillion in revenue over a ten-year period.

---

So, I know people who this applies to.
One owns a lot of stock in his company. It's totally concentrated. He would have to sell his stock in order to pay the tax. This would reduce his controlling interest in the company, which he built from the ground up. That doesn't seem fair. It's not like the value is $100M just sitting as cash in a bank account.

Another owns commercial real estate properties in Silicon Valley. What's he going to do? Sell buildings? There could be years when rents and cash income decline.

And the tax is repeating every year. So, let's say someone has $100M in assets. If they are interest bearing at 3%, no problem. You pay 2% and still earn $1M income for the year.
But if the valued assets are not interest bearing, as in stock, then the govt is going to take 2% of your assets. If the stock is flat, then next year it's worth $98M, then 96, then 94. If we hit years where the stock market is down, then you are going south faster.

This is not necessarily a great plan.
And Warren stood on stage with a straight face and said it's only 2 cents!

---

Actually, if someone has $100M they pay 2% on their wealth above $50M, so they pay $1M. ($100M - $50M) x .02 = $1M. In your quick analysis you have already doubled their tax burden.

The goal is to reduce wealth concentration. If somebody has to sell a little stock to pay the tax that's a win-win. I think your friends will be ok. If your friends stock isn't generating income or appreciating due to expected future income then why does it have any value at all? The stock is generating additional value in one form or another or he should be happy to sell it at a $100M valuation.

The Warren plan sounds like a simple cash grab.
It would be fraught with various problems. The website alludes to some of these problems, such as people moving assets offshore, or concentrated wealth positions in stock or real estate as I described.

Because of these issues, I doubt the move would bring in all that is advertised.
Does something need to be done to close the wealth gap? Yes.
I'm not sure what the best way to accomplish that is. On a historical basis, our rates are lower than ever.

concordtom said:

---

The Warren plan sounds like a simple cash grab.
It would be fraught with various problems. The website alludes to some of these problems, such as people moving assets offshore, or concentrated wealth positions in stock or real estate as I described.

Because of these issues, I doubt the move would bring in all that is advertised.
Does something need to be done to close the wealth gap? Yes.
I'm not sure what the best way to accomplish that is.

---

Well, you know, the younger generation is looking for answers. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Income now at 37%

We spend way too much time in this country talking about piddly**** and not enough time dealing with the 500 pound gorilla hanging over our shoulder.

Which candidate can straighten this problem out best?

concordtom said:

---

We spend way too much time in this country talking about piddly**** and not enough time dealing with the 500 pound gorilla hanging over our shoulder.

Which candidate can straighten this problem out best?

---

I agree. We really need to raise taxes at the top end to resolve the problem revealed in that chart.

concordtom said:

---

Like, all of a sudden, you're just going to come in and start taking their money?

---

The "their money" is a phrase you hear a lot. It really makes me angry. We all pay taxes. The money we all pay is "our money" that we pay back to the government for services. Why is only tax on the rich "robbery"? That is such a tired piece of propaganda.

The numbers need to be noodled but we need to put an end to the rich/corporate tax dodges and need to make paying into the system a value of our society, not robbery by the government or only for suckers.

We need a rebalance in income and rebuild of lower/middle class. That's just a fact for a healthy economy and society. It's going to take some "pain" (like they are actually suffering) from the wealthy to do it. Sorry. You have had it too good for too long.

Two issues that often get conflated in this debate: 1) fair and competitive tax rates, 2) government efficiency. But we can both have the wealthy pay a fairer share to the social contract that has befitted them AND look for government to be less wasteful.

Tangential but related point: I would like to see an end to corporations owning other corporations. The nesting and accounting is one of the chief ways profit is buried and that social accountability is masked. We should know who owns every corporation and those owners should be people. I think lack of transparency, lobbying, off shore, raiding, profit over public good, lack of ownership by workers, NDA/Non-compete/contractual overreach, executive compensation, golden parachutes...the corporate evils are far more destructive to our country than government and yet the American mindset is to trust business and mistrust government. But we have little to no oversight or recourse against business. And business has insulated itself. We have our trust in the wrong place.

blungld said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Like, all of a sudden, you're just going to come in and start taking their money?

---

The "their money" is a phrase you hear a lot. It really makes me angry. We all pay taxes. The money we all pay is "our money" that we pay back to the government for services. Why is only tax on the rich "robbery"? That is such a tired piece of propaganda.

---

blungld said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Like, all of a sudden, you're just going to come in and start taking their money?

---

The "their money" is a phrase you hear a lot. It really makes me angry. We all pay taxes. The money we all pay is "our money" that we pay back to the government for services. Why is only tax on the rich "robbery"? That is such a tired piece of propaganda.

---

I would also add to that the use of the term "cash grab." That implies that the cash is just being taken, but that is not the proposal. The proposal is to increase taxes to pay for new government programs or services that go back to the public. That's just how government works. You can agree or disagree with the program in question, but literally every reason to raise taxes (legitimate or not) can be described as a "cash grab."

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

Anarchistbear said:

---

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

---

That's because he is a conservative Republican. For which, the constituency is small (maybe 20% of the voting public?). He is a man without a party. But at least he sees that Trump is a threat to the Republic and he and I are 100% sympatico on that.

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

---

That's because he is a conservative Republican. For which, the constituency is small (maybe 20% of the voting public?). He is a man without a party. But at least he sees that Trump is a threat to the Republic and he and I are 100% sympatico on that.

---

This a CNN parody? LOL

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

We spend way too much time in this country talking about piddly**** and not enough time dealing with the 500 pound gorilla hanging over our shoulder.

Which candidate can straighten this problem out best?

---

I agree. We really need to raise taxes at the top end to resolve the problem revealed in that chart.

---

Did anyone else see the similarity of today's rate with that of the 1920's? Hope we don't have another 1929 coming, but wouldn't be surprised.
The reaction upon tax rates was they went skyrocketing up.

blungld said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Like, all of a sudden, you're just going to come in and start taking their money?

---

The "their money" is a phrase you hear a lot. It really makes me angry. We all pay taxes. The money we all pay is "our money" that we pay back to the government for services. Why is only tax on the rich "robbery"?

---

Because the tax I was referring to is a new one which is specifically targeting the ultra rich. Since I am not ultra rich, it's "their" money.

You jumped too soon, friend.

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

---

That's because he is a conservative Republican. For which, the constituency is small (maybe 20% of the voting public?). He is a man without a party. But at least he sees that Trump is a threat to the Republic and he and I are 100% sympatico on that.

---

You are so sure about that, are you?
When was the last time I voted republican?

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

---

That's because he is a conservative Republican. For which, the constituency is small (maybe 20% of the voting public?). He is a man without a party. But at least he sees that Trump is a threat to the Republic and he and I are 100% sympatico on that.

---

This a CNN parody? LOL

---

YOU are a threat to the Republic, and you don't even know it.

Quote:

---

The "their money" is a phrase you hear a lot. It really makes me angry.

---

Facts make you angry. It is 'their' money just like your money is yours, and mine is mine. Every penny. The government has the granted authority to 'take' your money through a legislative process (that's fine).

I get what you mean to say, but literally it's false.

I think there is too much emphasis on external factors and not on the individual failures to make positive choices. In a free and equal society where individual rights are constitutionally protected, it's odd that we're so apocalyptic about competing ideologies and we put virtually zero emphasis on conscious individual behaviors interacting with cultural values that correlate with socio-economic flourishing. Who occupies the WH won't affect the change on people's lives they're seeking. Only they can. The biggest obstacle and problem is always ourselves, not external structures. Blaming identity groups or political elites only encourages unhappiness, unrest, victimhood, and immaturity.

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

---

That's because he is a conservative Republican. For which, the constituency is small (maybe 20% of the voting public?). He is a man without a party. But at least he sees that Trump is a threat to the Republic and he and I are 100% sympatico on that.

---

This a CNN parody? LOL

---

YOU are a threat to the Republic, and you don't even know it.

---

Me? LOL. Or is your post the CNN parody?

Care to expound? I know I haven't condemned 100 million people as inferior for disagreeing with me. Have you?...

Looks like Biden is announcing on Thursday!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/politics/joe-biden-2020.html

GBear4Life said:

---

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

---

That's because he is a conservative Republican. For which, the constituency is small (maybe 20% of the voting public?). He is a man without a party. But at least he sees that Trump is a threat to the Republic and he and I are 100% sympatico on that.

---

This a CNN parody? LOL

---

YOU are a threat to the Republic, and you don't even know it.

---

Me? LOL. Or is your post the CNN parody?

Care to expound? I know I haven't condemned 100 million people as inferior for disagreeing with me. Have you?...

---

100 million????

Joe Biden say AG Barr is a heck of an honorable guy Dems can work with

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

---

That's because he is a conservative Republican. For which, the constituency is small (maybe 20% of the voting public?). He is a man without a party. But at least he sees that Trump is a threat to the Republic and he and I are 100% sympatico on that.

---

This a CNN parody? LOL

---

YOU are a threat to the Republic, and you don't even know it.

---

It's like Hemingway said, "there are many who do not know they are fascists but will find out when the time comes"

---

Lol.
...(pause, breath) That was spectacular!!!

GBear4Life said:

---

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

---

That's because he is a conservative Republican. For which, the constituency is small (maybe 20% of the voting public?). He is a man without a party. But at least he sees that Trump is a threat to the Republic and he and I are 100% sympatico on that.

---

This a CNN parody? LOL

---

YOU are a threat to the Republic, and you don't even know it.

---

Me? LOL. Or is your post the CNN parody?

Care to expound? I know I haven't condemned 100 million people as inferior for disagreeing with me. Have you?...

---

Yeah, actually I do condemn you.
Guilty of stupidity for not recognizing that Trump is a scoundrel.
Any day over the past 3, or 30, years should have been a clue to you.

With Biden expected to announce his candidacy today, there have been some articles on the demographics he appeals to. I understand appealing to the older generation, but I was surprised about the minority appeal. For all the flack some people give the Democratic Party about identity politics, you would think an old white guy would be their last choice.

Quote:

---

Biden receives his strongest levels of support from older adults and minorities.

Thirty-two percent of adults who are 55 years old and older said they would vote for Biden over other candidates. And 30 percent of nonwhite adults, including about 4 in 10 African-Americans, said they would back Biden for the nomination.

---

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/minorities-older-adults-boost-biden-atop-2020-democratic-field-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1S016T

Adding the caveat of 'it is early'.

golden sloth said:

---

With Biden expected to announce his candidacy today, there have been some articles on the demographics he appeals to. I understand appealing to the older generation, but I was surprised about the minority appeal. For all the flack some people give the Democratic Party about identity politics, you would think an old white guy would be their last choice.

Quote:

---

Biden receives his strongest levels of support from older adults and minorities.

Thirty-two percent of adults who are 55 years old and older said they would vote for Biden over other candidates. And 30 percent of nonwhite adults, including about 4 in 10 African-Americans, said they would back Biden for the nomination.

---

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/minorities-older-adults-boost-biden-atop-2020-democratic-field-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1S016T

Adding the caveat of 'it is early'.

---

I think Biden's association with Obama is one of the big factors here.

It could change. I think early in 2008 Hillary Clinton showed strong support from black voters . . . until Obama showed that he could win even in the Midwestern states, then he started dominating that demographic. I could see something similar happen for Kamala Harris, if she starts doing well.

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

---

That's because he is a conservative Republican. For which, the constituency is small (maybe 20% of the voting public?). He is a man without a party. But at least he sees that Trump is a threat to the Republic and he and I are 100% sympatico on that.

---

This a CNN parody? LOL

---

YOU are a threat to the Republic, and you don't even know it.

---

Me? LOL. Or is your post the CNN parody?

Care to expound? I know I haven't condemned 100 million people as inferior for disagreeing with me. Have you?...

---

Yeah, actually I do condemn you.
Guilty of stupidity for not recognizing that Trump is a scoundrel.
Any day over the past 3, or 30, years should have been a clue to you.

---

Assertion not founded in evidence, your honor.

You will continue to help Republicans win elections and be completely oblivious to it.

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

---

That's because he is a conservative Republican. For which, the constituency is small (maybe 20% of the voting public?). He is a man without a party. But at least he sees that Trump is a threat to the Republic and he and I are 100% sympatico on that.

---

This a CNN parody? LOL

---

YOU are a threat to the Republic, and you don't even know it.

---

It's like Hemingway said, "there are many who do not know they are fascists but will find out when the time comes"

---

Oh, ascribing 'fascist'. That's cool.

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In concordtom's elementary school training to join the Democrat Party he has once again been held back in the second grade.

---

That's because he is a conservative Republican. For which, the constituency is small (maybe 20% of the voting public?). He is a man without a party. But at least he sees that Trump is a threat to the Republic and he and I are 100% sympatico on that.

---

This a CNN parody? LOL

---

YOU are a threat to the Republic, and you don't even know it.

---

It's like Hemingway said, "there are many who do not know they are fascists but will find out when the time comes"

---

Oh, ascribing 'fascist'. That's cool.

---

That's what you call racist, undemocratic politics. If the shoe fits. . .